JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is serving as Lower Division Clerk in Bharatpur Judgeship pursuant to the transfer order passed by this court, dated 2.5.73, has filed this writ petition alleging inter-alia the violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of Rule 14(11) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules of 1986'), on the ground that he has been denied promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. which is a selection post and has challenged the ad-hoc promotion given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are admittedly junior to the petitioner as per the seniority list declared by respondent No. 1, i.e., the District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. 2. The facts giving.rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner after having passed competitive examination on 23rd & 24th August, 1969, was appointed as L.D.C. by District Judge Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh vide his order dated 1.8.1970 for an initial period of six months. The said appointment was made by the District Judge, Pratapgarh. District Chittorgarh vide order dated 27.7.1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 110-5-160. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner had subsequently passed his departmental examination conducted by the Rajasthan High Court in the year 1971 as provided under the Rules. Thereafter on 15.5.73 petitioner was transferred from Chhoti Sadari to Bharatpur Judgeship by orders of the High Court dated 2.5.73 and in consequence of the said order the District Judge, Bharatpur posted the petitioner as Asstt. Nazir in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Karauli. It has been further contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the learned District Judge, Bharatpur (respondent No. 1) had issued a final seniority list of L.D.Cs. serving within his Judgeship on 7.4.86, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 28, while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were placed at serial No. 30 & 32 respectively. Perusal of the said Annexure reveals that the petitioner is placed at serial No. 28 and is shown an appointee of the year 1970 vide appointment order, dated 27.7.70. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Deenanath Gupta, L.D.C. in the court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur and Pramod Kumar Garg, L.D.C. in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Weir, Distt. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Deenanath Gupta, L.D.C. in the court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur and Pramod Kumar Garg, L.D.C. in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Weir, Distt. Bharatpur whose names figure in the seniority list vide Annexure , are placed at serial Nos. 30 and 32 respectively and are shown as appointees of 1973, their dates of appointment being 18.7.1973 and 2.1.1974 respectively. It has been further contended in the writ petition that in August, 1987, when the petitioner became eligible to be considered for the grant of selection grade on completion of over about 17 years of service the petitioner had requested the Appointing Authority to consider him for the grant of selection grade, but neither the petitioner was given his rightful claim nor any satisfactory reply was given for withholding the same to which the petitioner contends that he was entitled as per Rules. It has been further contended that on 23.10.1978 reply was received by the petitioner from respondent No. 1 wherein it was mentioned that the selection grade is not being given to the petitioner in view of a departmental inquiry pending against him. The departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner way-back on 18.10.1986 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.3.1987. Further, the only charge which was levelled against the petitioner in the said inquiry was that he had been negligent in making entries in the record while he was in-charge of Malkhana. The petitioner was exonerated in the said inquiry which was concluded on 3.3.1989 vide Annexure 2. 3. However, in the meanwhile the petitioner had further requested the Appointing authority through his representations dated 9.1.87 and 30.11.87 to consider the petitioner for grant of selection grade, since in the said representation the petitioner had pointed out the names of other similarly placed employees, like the petitioner such as Kamal Kishore Shrivastava who had been given selection grade though a departmental inquiry was pending against him. The petitioner had also mentioned the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma who had also been given selection grade inspite of the fact that he had been punished in the departmental inquiry. 4. The petitioner had also mentioned the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma who had also been given selection grade inspite of the fact that he had been punished in the departmental inquiry. 4. It has been further contended by the petitioner that after the conclusion of the first inquiry in which as aforesaid he was exonerated of the charge, second inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 1 on 15.6.1988 on the ground that he had been negligent in discharge of his official duties since a date of birth certificate which is said to have been annexed with an application filed by the accused in a criminal case was found missing. The inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and one Shri Purushottam Lal Pushp, petitioner's predecessor in office. Though the inquiry was ordered by the District Judge vide his order, dated 15.6.88, but the Enquiry Officer came to be appointed on 16.3.89 which was initiated with the object to harass the petitioner and to deprive him of his rightful claim of the selection grade and other service benefits. 5. It has further been contended that when the first departmental inquiry against the petitioner was concluded on 3.3.89, soon thereafter respondent No. 1 appointed Enquiry Officer on 16.3.198, whereas the charge-sheet of second inquiry was given way-back in June, 1988. This, according to the petitioner, was done deliberately by keeping the inquiry pending against the petitioner so as to affect the grant of selection grade to him. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 12.4.1990 District Judge, Bharatpur had given ad-hoc promotion on the post of U.D.C. to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are admittedly junior to the petitioner. It is this impugned order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition in which he has prayed that the same be quashed and set aside by giving a suitable direction to respondent No. 1 to give selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. August, 1987 or from 12.4.1990, i.e., from the date his next juniors have been promoted. 7. The petitioner has further contended that the arbitrary action of respondent No. 1 in denying selection grade to the petitioner and also depriving him of ado-hoc promotion to which he was entitled prior to respondent Nos. 7. The petitioner has further contended that the arbitrary action of respondent No. 1 in denying selection grade to the petitioner and also depriving him of ado-hoc promotion to which he was entitled prior to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were given promotion, has resulted in violation of petitioner's fundamental right, since the action of respondent No. 1 is wholly contrary to the relevant rules according to which promotion is to be given to the higher post on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It has been further contended that the impugned order, dated 12.4.1990 passed by respondent No. 1 as well as inaction on his part in not giving the selection grade to the petitioner, is wholly illegal, contrary to relevant rules and against the established principles of service law. 8. In the grounds taken in support of the writ petition apart from what has been contended above, the petitioner has also stated that under the Rules of 1986, the promotion to the members of the service is to be made from L.D.C. on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, whereas in the instant case respondent No. 1 has violated the rules by acting in most whimsical manner by giving ad-hoc promotion to the persons who are much junior to the petitioner. It has been further stated that there is no adverse remark against the petitioner which could deprive him of his promotional right as against his juniors and since no reason whatsoever has been given by respondent No. 1 so as to justify his impugned action in not adopting the principle of seniority-cum-merit as provided under the rules. 9. The averments made on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition have been controverted by the respondents in their reply to show cause notice on the ground that the petitioner was not given the selection grade on account of the fact that several departmental inquiries were pending against the petitioner under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short `C.C.A. Rules'). In reply to para 4 of the writ petition it has been specifically contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that a Departmental Committee was constituted for considering the merit of the candidates who were to be given selection grade and that the Committee decided to look into the service record of various eligible candidates for last 10 years. In reply to para 4 of the writ petition it has been specifically contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that a Departmental Committee was constituted for considering the merit of the candidates who were to be given selection grade and that the Committee decided to look into the service record of various eligible candidates for last 10 years. It has been further stated that during the last 10 years the petitioner had been awarded the punishment of censure etc. and Various departmental inquiries were initiated/concluded against the petitioner during the said period, details of which have been given in the reply. 10. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had on 21.3.1984 in connivance with other officials had made a false complaint against the District Judge, Bharatpur to the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court and also had sent the copies of the said report to the District Judge, Bharatpur, Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur and some other higher authorities, and had thus committed an act of indiscipline and insubordination. Another allegation regarding the said charge against the petitioner was that under the influence of some individual, he had accepted the bail of an accused in criminal case No. 67/63 under Sections 332 & 352 IPC and an inquiry was conducted. Another allegation regarding the said charge against the petitioner was that under the influence of some individual, he had accepted the bail of an accused in criminal case No. 67/63 under Sections 332 & 352 IPC and an inquiry was conducted. On the basis of the said inquiry charges were found provided and the petitioner was found guilty of the same and was accordingly punished for act of insubordination vide order dated 15.4.1987.Second charge against the petitioner was that vide No. 3635 dated 9.5.1988 the employees who were charged with the allegation of having committed financial irregularities in seven cases were not completed within the stipulated time and hence notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Judge, Bharatpur on 24.11.1989, to which the petitioner did not submit any reply and, therefore, this charge was found proved and a penalty of censure was awarded to the petitioner with a warning to be careful in future in terms of the order dated 28.5.1988.In respect of third charge an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 18.10.1986 under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules and the petitioner was exonerated of this charge as a result of the inquiry.Regarding charge No. 4, pursuant to an order dated 17.11.1984 the petitioner was awarded a penalty of censure with a warning to be careful, since he had not posted slips on the malkhana articles.With regard to charge No. 5 an inquiry was initiated and pending against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. 11. It will be apparent from the above that out of five charges as mentioned above, the petitioner has been punished in respect of three, i.e., 1st, 2nd & 4th, exonerated in respect of third charge while inquiry in respect of 5th charge is still pending against him. 12. It has been further stated in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that as regards the allegation that selection grade was given to Sarva Shri Kamal Kishore Shrivastava and Vishnudutt Sharma, notwithstanding the pendency of departmental inquiry against both of them, it has been submitted that those inquiries pertain to the allegations which were levelled against them earlier to preceding 10 years and consequently the Departmental Committee had ignored the inquiries pending against the said individuals, since the allegations against them pertain to the year 1979. It has been further contended that Departmental Committee which was constituted for recommending the selection grade to the petitioner, did not find the petitioner suitable on account of various delinquencies committed by him which have already been referred to above. After considering and examining the report of the Departmental Committee, the Appointing Authority, respondent No. 1, did not find the petitioner suitable for the award of selection grade and as such the same was denied to him. 13. It has been further stated in the reply that the inquiry which was initiated against the petitioner was not on account of any malafides or bias of the Appointing Authority against him nor with a view to harass him or to deprive him of his claim of selection grade, but on account of the fact that the petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duties and even otherwise on merit, he was not found suitable for the award of selection grade and as such the same was denied to him. It has been specifically contended by respondent No. 1 in reply to ground (b) as under : "Whereas the petitioner who is guilty of several delinquencies committed to him within the last preceding 10 years was not found suitable by the Departmental Committee and as such his name was not recommended. The answering respondent after going through the recommendations of the Departmental Committee as also the relevant record did not find the petitioner suitable for the award of selection grade and as such the same was denied to him." 14. During the course of hearing it has been contended at the bar by Miss Gayatri Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been discriminated on account of denial of selection grade qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3, since, both, on seniority as well as merit, the petitioner deserves to be considered for promotion to the post of UD.C. and also for the grant of selection grade on account of petitioner's seniority qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with Rules. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were much juniors to the petitioner who have been given selection grade; whereas the same has been denied to the petitioner inspite of the fact that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry. 2 and 3 in accordance with Rules. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were much juniors to the petitioner who have been given selection grade; whereas the same has been denied to the petitioner inspite of the fact that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry. In this respect learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted by the learned counsel for respondents who contended that out of five charges, the petitioner has been awarded the penalty of censure in respect of three, exonerated as against the fourth and departmental inquiry is still pending as against the fifth charge. There are adverse entries in the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner and the Departmental Committee comprising of five judicial officers of RHJS and RJS respectively, i.e., District Judge, Additional District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, has not approved the petitioner either for promotion or for selection grade in view of the petitioner being found guilty of delinquencies committed by him during last 10 years and was not fond suitable by the Departmental Committee for the award of selection grade and hence no fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution have been infringed' nor there has been any violation of the Rules of 1986. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the court to the report of the Departmental Committee which has been reproduced in vernacular in reply to the ground (d) of the grounds. It is stated in the report of Departmental Committee that on the perusal of the service record of Shri Teekam Chand Gupta it has been found that A.C.Rs. pertaining to the period 1986-89 are not available; whereas for the year 1983 there are adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner wherein it is mentioned as `below average'. For the years 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988 the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner are `average' and that after the inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, on the basis of inquiry conducted against the petitioner, the petitioner was awarded penalty of censure on 27.5.1988 as well as one inquiry was pending against the petitioner under C.C.A. Rules. Under these circumstances the Departmental Committee has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. Under these circumstances the Departmental Committee has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. It has been further contended at the bar by Miss Deepa Ajwani, learned counsel for the respondents that for the grant of selection grade merit-cum-suitability of the candidate concerned have to be taken into consideration by the D.P.C. and the seniority alone is not the criteria either for grade of selection grade or the promotion. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of relevant documents placed on the record as well as on perusal of the relevant Rule 14(i) (ii) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, I am of the considered opinion that either promotion to a higher post or selection grade cannot be claimed by a candidate as a matter of right. The twofold criteria of `Merit-cum-suitability' of the candidate concerned is an essential pre-requisite or `Sina-quia-non' for the award of selection grade in the interest of administration and for better efficiency in service and I am further of the opinion that seniority alone should not be a guiding fact in the matter of grant of promotion or selection grade is so contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am further of the opinion that in view of the adverse entries made in the service record of the petitioner and also in view of the report of the Departmental Committee which did not recommend the petitioner for the award of either the selection grade or the promotion to the petitioner, he cannot be considered entitled for the same. 17. Thus, in view of the adverse entries recorded in the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner as well as the report of the Departmental Committee as referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. I am further of the opinion that since the petitioner was found guilty of several delinquencies committed by him during preceding 10 years and the D.P.C. having not found him suitable for the award of selection grade alongwith the other eligible candidates, namely, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, no case of discrimination has been made out qua the said respondents and there is no violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2 and 3, no case of discrimination has been made out qua the said respondents and there is no violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I am further of the considered opinion that there is no arbitrariness in the denial of selection grade to the petitioner or in the matter of denial of promotion to the petitioner. In this connection it will be appropriate to refer to Rule 14(ii) and (viii) of the Rules of 1986 which provide-as under : "14(ii) - Selection for promotion to.the posts of Upper Division Clerks and Readers in the courts other than those of District & Sessions Judge and Addl. District & Sessions Judge shall be made from the Lower Division Clerks on the basis of seniority-cum-merit." (viii) -The provisions of this rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provisions of these rules." A perusal of the above Rules makes it explicitly clear that the award of selection grade or promotion from the post of L.D.C. to that of U.D.C. and to the Readers in the courts other than those of District & Sessions Judges and Addl. District & Sessions Judge cannot be claimed as a matter of right and twin criteria of `seniority-cum-merit' is a conditional precedent for both i.e., the promotion as well as the selection grade and since the petitioner has not been recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion as well a selection grade, no case for interference is made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court in favour of the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the impugned order, dated 12.4.1990 (Ex. 3) passed by respondent No. 1 deserves to be maintained. 18. In support of her contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and others : AIR 1976 S.C. 490 . 3) passed by respondent No. 1 deserves to be maintained. 18. In support of her contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and others : AIR 1976 S.C. 490 . I have perused the judgment of the Apex Court and I am of the opinion that the ratio of the said judgment is neither attracted nor applicable to the facts of the instant case, since in the context of interpretation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India- ,nothing prevents the Appointing Authority from making reasonable classification in the matters relating to employment, appointments or promotions and Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India, does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable classification for selections to any employment or appointment to any office; provided that the said classification is based on intelligible differential and has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the same. The question of law which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was as to whether there is any prohibition under Art. 16 of the Constitution of India regarding the award of selection grade in the matter of power of the State to make reservation which is conferred on the State under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of' India and which power or exercise by the State in appropriate cases not only by providing for reservation of appointments but also by providing for reservation of selection posts. On the perusal of the said judgment of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the ratio of the said decision is not helpful to the petitioner since the Apex Court has further observed in this case that "it must not be forgotten that the efficiency of administration is of such paramount importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration." The present case is not one of reservation of posts by promotion and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment does not help in advancing the case of the petitioner in any manner. 19. 19. I would further like to observe that it is not for this court to substitute its own judgment over that of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the decision of the D.P.C. is not open to challenge unless its decision is patently.unjust and arbitrary or has been arrived at in violation of any statutory Rules. From the materials placed on the record and also from perusal of the report of the Disciplinary Committee, I am of the considered opinion that since the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during preceding five years and as he was not found eligible suitable for the grant of selection grade or the promotion, no interference is called for. and since, the petitioner had earned adverse remarks during last. 5 years of service, and out of five charges as referred to above, penalty of censure was awarded as against the charges which. were found proved, in respect of fourth charge the petitioner was exonerated, while against the fifth charge the inquiry is still pending, it will not be proper for this court to exercise its discretion in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India or to substitute its judgment over the findings of the Departmental Committee: 20. I may like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal No. 7427/1983 decided on 11.3.1987: IFLR (1987) Vol 54 page 460 where the Apex Court cases of premature retirement, the adverse entries must be of last five years only and the same must be communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Applying the above analogy to the facts of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner was found guilty of several delinquencies committed by.him during last preceding 10 years and was not found suitable by the D.P.C., either for promotion or for award of selection grade, the question of entitlement of the petitioner for grant of selection grade on account of seniority does not arise when it is a settled principle of law that a candidate must also be found suitable for award of selection grade, i.e., the merit and suitability of the candidate concerned on the basis of his efficiency and performance has also to be taken into consideration by the Appointing Authority before recommending his case for the award of selection grade. 21. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on State Government Order No. F20(1)FD(Gr. 2)/92 (RPS 89-1/92) dated 25.1.92 which was issued with a view to provide relief to the employees in Class IV, Ministerial and subordinate services posts, Selection Grades were prescribed for the lowest posts in these services vide department order, dated 23.1.1985 in supersession of the earlier order, the Government has been pleased to order that the Government servants of the categories mentioned below and who are drawing pay in the pay scale prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 may be granted selection grade as indicated below : "2(i) The first selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. (ii) The second selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first selection grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. (ii) The second selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first selection grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. (iii) The third selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second selection grade granted to him, as the case may be, was lower than the pay scales of Rs. 2200-4000." Perusal of this order also makes it clear that selection grade in terms of this order shall be granted by the concerned department only to those employees whose service record is found satisfactory and the record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit shall be considered to be sufficient for the grade of selection grade, keeping in view the length of service in different cadre as referred to above. Hence in my considered opinion the record of service which makes one eligible for promotion has to be looked into for the purposes of determining the eligibility of candidate for grant of promotion and the seniority alone is not the criteria for the award of the selection grade or for promotion. I am further of the considered opinion that law is well settled on the subject that promotion to any particular post cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee and mere completion of particular period of service does not by itself make the incumbent entitled to promotion. 22. I am fortified in my observation by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gurdial Singh Fiji v. The State of Punjab and others : 1982(1) S.L.R. 651. The question which has arisen for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether the non-inclusion of IAS officers in the select list, amounted to violation of the petitioner's right to be appointed on a particular post ? The question which has arisen for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether the non-inclusion of IAS officers in the select list, amounted to violation of the petitioner's right to be appointed on a particular post ? In this case the grievance of the petitioner before the Apex Court was regarding non-inclusion of his name in the select list which was approved by the Union Public Service Commission which accrued with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It was held by the Apex Court that the Selection Committee is an independent body and there is nothing on the record to persuade the court to arrive at the conclusion that the decision of the Selection Committee was not properly arrived at on the consideration of the merits of the case and was, in any way, otherwise motivated. It was further held by the Apex Court that the petitioner cannot claim to be included in the select list as a matter of right which was prepared by the Selection Committee on consideration of the merits and on the basis of suitability of the officer concerned and the recommendations made by the Selection Committee have to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission. As the Selection Committee had not considered the petitioner to be suitable to be included in the select list and the U.P.S.C. had concurred with recommendations of the Selection Committee, the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the select list must fail. 23. The above view of the Apex Court was again followed in the matter of State Bank of India & Others v. Mohd. Mynuddin, 1987(4) S.L.R. 383 by the Apex Court. This was a case concerning non-inclusion of name of the respondent who was an officer in the State Bank of India by the Selection Committee for the vacancies of the particular years as it did not find the respondent fit for promotion on all such occasions. There was no allegation of bias or malafides urged against the members of the Selection Committee or the management. There was no allegation of bias or malafides urged against the members of the Selection Committee or the management. The State Bank of India as an appellant had contended before the Apex Court that promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale III post depended not merely upon the eligibility but on merit and such promotion was accorded only after a proper evaluation of the service records, performance appraisal and potentiality of the officer concerned to assume higher responsibilities. The evaluation was done by the Selection Committee, which was expected to go into several aspects including the merits and demerits of all the candidates who were eligible. It was further contended by the appellant before the Apex Court that mere absence of adverse remarks did not entitle an employee to promotion to the next higher grade automatically when promotion was by selection. It was further pleaded that after applying the relevant test laid down by several circulars issued by the management embodying the guidelines in respect of the selection of officers, promotion could only be given on the basis of said guidelines and on the basis of merit of the officer concerned. Consequently it was held by the Apex Court that whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of the merit, no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of right by virtue of seniority alone w.e.f. the date on which his juniors are promoted, and it is not sufficient that in his confidential reports it is recorded that his services are satisfactory. 24. In the matter of Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi v. The Secretary, Food and Civil Supply U.P. and others, 1992(64) I.R & L.R. 990 it was held by Allahabad High Court that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it has to be made against quota or on merit. It has to take place only when some order has been made in that behalf. It was further held that mere completion of service for certain period cannot be treated as sufficient for promotion. 25. In the matter of State of Gujarat & Anr. It has to take place only when some order has been made in that behalf. It was further held that mere completion of service for certain period cannot be treated as sufficient for promotion. 25. In the matter of State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Saratsingh R. Sisodia & Ors., 1993 1 CLR 892 the above principle was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by observing that law is well settled that nobody has got any vested right of promoton and chance of promotion can always be affected by .introducing statutory rules governing the conditions of service. 26. In the matter of V.M.K. Menon v. Scientific Advisory : 1985(2) S.L.R. (39) 810 it was held by Karnataka High Court that the employee has got only the right to be considered for promotion. He has no legal right to claim promotion if on the basis of opinion formed by Departmental Promotion Committee, an employee is not found suitable for recommendation to be promoted, court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Departmental Promotion Committee. It was further held by the High Court that even the non-selection cadre depends upon the assumption made the Promotional Committee as to whether a particular employee is fit for promotion or not ? If the verdict of the Committee is that he was not fit, then he must be content with the situation and this court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Committee. 27. In view of the discussion made in foregoing paras above and also keeping in view the ratio of the decisions and the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts of the country, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order, dated 12.4.1990 (Annexdre 3) passed by respondent No. 1 is not open to challenge, since the respondents have acted perfectly in accordance with the Rules and there is nothing arbitrary in exercise of their discretion as against the petitioner in the matter of denial of promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. and the selection grade and that the petitioner has not made out any case for involving the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. In the result, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******