V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by an employee of a Co-operative bank, seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2, Chairman of the Cooperative bank to promote the petitioner at par with respondents No. 4 and 5 and to post him at Rajgarh Biaora, in view of ill-health of petitioner's wife. The consequential benefits of such promotion has also been sought. ( 2 ) THE allegations in the petition in short are that the employees of the district Co-operative Central Bank are governed by M. P. District Cooperative central Bank Employees Service Condition, 1982 Rules and under those Rules the Bank Employees have been categorised in various classes known as category 2 and category 3 and category 4 and 5. According to the petitioner category 2 is further sub-divided into 2 (A) and 2 (B ). Category 2 (A) carries a pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2680, whereas category 2 (B)carries a pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2290. The petitioner further contends that a seniority list showing the names of the officers category wise has been prepared. The petitioner has annexed as Annexure P-2 such a seniority list showing position as on 30-6-1987. According to the petitioner promotions from a lower category to higher category have to be made on the basis if, seniority. As per Aunexure P-2, the petitioner is placed at sj. Mo. 8 in category 3 and respondent No. 4 is placed at SI. No. 11 in the same category. Respondent No. 5 has been shown to be at No 1 amongst supervisors in Category 3. Thus according to the petitioner both the respondents No. 4 and 5 are junior to him. The petitioner further contends that on 9-9-1987 vide resolution No. 5 the meeting of Staff-sub-committee considering promotions has recommended names of respondsnts No. 4 and 5 for promotion from category 3 to category 2 (A) directly. Respondents no. 4 and 5 were given retrospective promotions to category 2 (A) w. e f. 1 -9-1987, while the petitioner was superceded by his juniors. Subsequently on representation being made the petitioner was also given promotion but he was promoted from category 3 to category 2 (B) and not to category 2 (A ). The petitioner submits that the aforesaid action is clearly mala fide and amounts to victimisation. Subsequently on representation being made the petitioner was also given promotion but he was promoted from category 3 to category 2 (B) and not to category 2 (A ). The petitioner submits that the aforesaid action is clearly mala fide and amounts to victimisation. According to the petitioner as he was transferred to Kurwar Branch knowing fully well that his wife was seriously ill and that his post was at Rajgarh. This indicated notice. ( 3 ) THE respondents in their return have raised a preliminary objection as to availability of equally eft'acacious remedy under Section 55 (2) of the m. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On merits the respondents have submitted that the promotions were on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, and not on the basis of seniority alone. According to the respondents the respondents No. 4 and 5 were superior in merit and were already discharging higher responsibilities. According to the respondents, the respondent No. 4 holds a degree of B Com and Respondent No. 5 was a Matriculate, whereas, the petitioner had only passed middle school examination. The respondents further contend that a Committee was duly constituted for the purpose of considering promotions and such committee has found respondents No. 4 and 5 more suitable for promotion than the petitioner and this Court cannot be asked to sit in appeal over the decision of the departmental promotions committee. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri N. P. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri U. M. Nimgaonkar learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) SHRI N. P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contention that the promotion has to be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority has no merits as it has been provided in Rule 24 (7, that for the purpose of promotion to category 2, a combined gradation list of bank employees category 3 and Managers, Managing Director shall be prepared on the basis of seniority and promotions to category 2 shall be made from this gradation list on the basis of seniority. The foot note No. 2 appended to Rule 24 (1)reads as under : ****** ( 6 ) SHRI Nimgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents points out from Rule 20 that it requires preparation of gradation list of all the employees of the Bank, after calling objections to the places awarded to the employees in the seniority list. The foot note No. 2 appended to Rule 24 (1)reads as under : ****** ( 6 ) SHRI Nimgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents points out from Rule 20 that it requires preparation of gradation list of all the employees of the Bank, after calling objections to the places awarded to the employees in the seniority list. The Rule also provides that a committee shall be constituted which shall consider the appointments/promotions. Such a committee shall consider the names of persons shown in the gradation list prepared and prepare a Panel for promotion. it is further provided that for inclusion in the panel the selection shall be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The aforesaid Rule 20 (2) (ga; and vgha) reads as under : ****** ( 7 ) APPARENTLY, the two provisions pressed into service by the learned counsel opposing each other appear to be contradictory. However, to construe both the aforesaid rules harmoniously, we will have to examine the over-all intention of the rule-making Body. Having provided in details the preparation of a gradation list and Panel for promotion in Rule 20 it is hard to believe that a foot-note of a subsequent rule requires ignorance of the panel for promotion prepared under Rule 20. If the promotions were to be made from the gradation list on the basis of seniority alone constitution of a selection Committee would be an empty formality and an exercise in futility. It appears that the intention is to prepare from the gradation list of category 3 and Managers, and managing Directors a combined gradation list showing inter se seniority of officers included in the combined gradation list and then such combined gradation list is to be used for preparation of panel for promotion as per Rule 20 (2) ,ga) and (gh ). In our opinion the foot note no. 2, below the chart given in Rule 24 (7) was necessitated only because selection for promotion to category 2 was from two catego'ies namely category 3 and Managers and Managing Directors. As the gradation lists of category 3 and category of Managers/managing Directors were bound to be separate, it was necessary to explain as to how their seniority would be counted ? It was for this purpose that foot note No. 2 aforesaid was added providing for a combined gradation list to be prepared. As the gradation lists of category 3 and category of Managers/managing Directors were bound to be separate, it was necessary to explain as to how their seniority would be counted ? It was for this purpose that foot note No. 2 aforesaid was added providing for a combined gradation list to be prepared. Viewed in this light, it is clear that the words "ek Sanyukta Padaram Suchi Unki Warishttake Adhar par Taiyar Ki Jawegi Tatha is Sanyukt a Padkram Suchi Me Ankit Warishtta ke Adhar Par Warg 2 (2.) Ke Padunnati Ki Jawegi" do not wipe out the effect of Rule 20 (2 (ga) and Cgh) and provide for promotion on the basis of seniority alone. The intention of the rule-makers is clear that such a combined gradation list prepared for promotion from category 3 and Managers, managing directors shall be the gradation list used for preparation of a Panel under rule 20 2) (ga)and (gh ). ( 8 ) IN the light of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that promotion from category 3 to category 2 is on the basis of merit-cum-seniority as contended by the respondents and not on the basis of seniority alone as contended by the petitioner. Now the respondents have demonstrated that the promotions were decided by a sub-committee duly constituted on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. If such a Committee has found respondents No. 4 and 5 as comparatively superior to the petitioner, it is not for this Court to substitute it's judgment in place of judgment of a duly appointed Selection Committee. We do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the promotions given to respondents No.-4 and 5. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The security deposit be refunded after due verification. Petition dismissed. .