R. BALIA, J. ( 1 ) NONE appears for the respondents despite service. No return has been filed so far. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that in the seniority list amongst clerks in selection grade his name appeared at No. 4 while respondent No. 4 was shown at serial No. 12. vide impugned order dated 17. 1 the respondent No. 4 has been promoted to the next higher post of head clerk ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. From the impugned order it appears that the promotion to respondent No. 4 was given subject to the decision of the advisory committee. ( 3 ) RELEVANT rule which governs the promotion to the head clerk in the Government Printing and Stationery Department class III reads as under :"2 Appointment to the post of Head Clerk in the Gujarat Subordinate service in the Government Printing and Stationery Department class III shall be made:- (a) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons working as Senior Clerks/accountant/store Keeper in the Government Presses or in the Office of Director Government Printing and Stationery as the case may be or (b) by transfer of a Store keeper in the office of the Director Government Printing and Stationery. ( 4 ) FROM the impugned order; it is apparent that the exercise of adjudging proved merits and efficiency was not undertaken which was to be decided by the advisory committee. In absence of any determination of merit and efficiency amongst eligible candidates it is not discernible on what basis the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of head clerk was not considered. It is well settled that in absence of any Rules ordinary rule of promotion is seniority subject to suitability. Even in cases where regular promotion is on the basis of merits is envisaged and the seniority rule is pushed to the back seat where a promotion is made ad hoc without deciding upon the question of comparative merit the appointing authority is entitled to give a go by to the seniority and put a junior person in advantageous position in an arbitrary manner. In the present case from the order it is apparent that the appointment is not merely on ad hoc basis but was made subject to the decision of the advisory committee i. e. if the advisory committee were to recommend the promotion was on regular basis right from the inception and if the advisory committee was not to recommend the incumbent could be asked to revert. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances the conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner has been arbitrarily treated and equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion has not been afforded while considering the promotion to the next higher post. ( 6 ) IT is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the impugned order Annexure C respondent No. 4 has continued on the post and without there being a regular post and appointment but the petitioner has retired. In the circumstances it would not be proper to quash the order Annexure C but ends of justice would be met if it is directed that the respondents shall consider and promote the petitioner with effect from the date if not earlier from which his junior respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of head clerk if otherwise found suitable and give him all consequential benefits within three months. Accordingly Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .