JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as a Sale Amin in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagadalpur on 25.2.1974, who then was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk from 28.3.1975. The petitioner was shown in the gradation list as senior to the persons mentioned in paragraph-5 of the petition. The petitioner complains that his juniors were promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk on 15.6.1990 while the petitioner was not. Non-promotion of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The stand of the respondents is that though the petitioner was senior, but, his service record was most un-satisfactory, he was punished at several occasions and lastly after holding a departmental enquiry, the District Judge vide order dated 21.5.1987 - Annexure-R/1, passed a punishment of withholding on two increments for the period of 25.3.1988 and 21.3.1989. Petitioner did not challenge the said order of punishment. Petitioner's increments were released on 21.3.1990. When the matter came up for consideration for promotions his five years' service record was considered by the committee including adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted, but, lastly considering the long tenure of service of petitioner, the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 1.5.1992. Against his non-promotion the petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by the appointing authority and thereafter his appeal was also rejected by the High Court. The promotion is governed by Rule-13 of the M.P. Civil Service (General Conditions) Rules, 1961, which reads thus :- "13. Promotion -- The Government shall determine in respect of each grade or service to which appointment may be made by promotion, the grade or service from which promotion may be made and the procedure to be followed for the purpose, and in particular whether such promotion shall be on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the persons considered unfit for promotion or whether the selection for promotion shall be determined on the basis of merit from among persons who had completed in the lower grade or service such minimum period of service as may be prescribed." A reading of rule-13 shows that seniority is not only the criteria while considering a case for promotion, merit and service record of particular period is also to be considered. In the case of the petitioner record of five years service was considered, and on consideration of that, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion in the year 1990. Petitioner has not alleged any mala fides, nor he could point out that five years record of service prior to year 1990 was satisfactory. True, promotion increases efficiency in public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes service ineffective. However, promotion is not a vested right A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, while chances of promotion are not. Unless a person who challenges his non-promotion points out that his supersession or non-promotion is on account of mala fides or victimization he cannot seek a direction for reconsideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was considered for promotion, but, on overall performance for a period of five years was not found fit for promotion, however, he was promoted in the year 1992. In view of all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merit and has to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.