Honble VERMA, J.–The promotion order of the petitioner to the post of State Leprosy Officer made on 26.7.1994 as well as to the post of Zonal Leprosy Officer made on 3.5.1994 against the vacancies of the year 1988-89 and 1982-83 respectively on the basis of seniority cum merit (Annexs. 2 and 1 respectively) were challenged by the respondent No.1 Dr. M.P. Pareek before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal vide its order dated 31.3.1995 set aside the order of promotion Annexs.1 and 2 with the direction to hold a review D.P.C. for promo- tion to the post of Zonal Leprosy Officer (hereinafter called the ``Z.L.O.) for the year 1982-83 and for the State Leprosy Officer (hereinafter called the ``S.L.O.) for the year 1988-89 and with a further direction that if the respondent No.1 is found to be fit for consideration for the post of S.L.O. then he shall be so entitled to the benefits. The order of the Tribunal Annex.12 has been challenged in the present writ petition. (2). The respondent No. 1 had challenged the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that the order dated 3.5.1994, the selection and promotion of the petitioner, made in response to such selection vide order dated 26.7.1994, were illegal and in violation of the scheme of the Rules of 1963. The respondent No. 1 had submitted before the Tribunal that he was senior to the petitioner in the cadre of C.A.S./Sr. M.O. It was submitted that both had passed M.D. in the year 1980 which is the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Z.L.O. If was further submitted that neither the petitioner nor the respondent, Dr. M.P. Pareek, had the requisite experience for holding such a post. Number of objections were taken by the petitioner and the State of Rajasthan in the written-statements filed by them be- fore the Tribunal. It was averred before the Tribunal that under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rule, 1963 (referred to hereinafter as `the Rules of 1963) there were 3 wings i.e. General Cadre in C.A.S. now redesignated as Medical Officers, Specialist Cadre wherein the C.A.S. can be promoted either to the post of Sr. Medical Officer, redesignated as the post of Jr. It was averred before the Tribunal that under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rule, 1963 (referred to hereinafter as `the Rules of 1963) there were 3 wings i.e. General Cadre in C.A.S. now redesignated as Medical Officers, Specialist Cadre wherein the C.A.S. can be promoted either to the post of Sr. Medical Officer, redesignated as the post of Jr. Specialist and the third channel was from the Leprosy side in which cadre the Medical Officers could be promoted as Z.L.O. which was redesignated as D.L.O. It was stated that the respondent No. 1 had accepted that he was in General Cadre and he never objected when he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Medical and Health Services, rather the respondent No.1 had also filed a writ petition for issuance of a direction to the Govern- ment to make substantive appointment by way of promotion on the post of Assistant Director, Dy. Director, Joint Director and Additional Director in accordance with the Rules of 1963. It was further stated by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 had never requested for training in the Leprosy Eradication Programme whereas the petitioner had applied for such a training and he had undergone the training prior to 1.4.1988. It was further submitted the respondent No. 1 was never willing to undertake the Leprosy as a service career prior to 1994 whereas the petitioner had shown his inclination towards Leprosy channel. (3). It is admitted fact that under the Rules of 1963 the Medical Officer, earlier called as C.A.S./Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer, had 3 channels of promo- tion i.e. General Channel, Specialist Channel and Leprosy Channel. The Medical Officer could be promoted as Sr. Medical Officer with 8 years experience and again to the post of Dy. Director with 5 years experience and Joint Director with 5 years experience and from the post of Joint Director the incumbent could be promoted to the post of Additional Director with 2 years experience and from the post of Addi- tional Director could be promoted to the post of Director with 3 years experience or a Joint Director could be promoted directly to the post of Director with 5 years of experience. This was the channel which had been adopted and volunteered by Dr. Pareek respondent No. 1 and he was holding the post of Dy. Director. (4). This was the channel which had been adopted and volunteered by Dr. Pareek respondent No. 1 and he was holding the post of Dy. Director. (4). The other channel of promotion was i.e. called the Specialist Channel i.e. from Medical Officer to Junior Specialist and again to Senior Specialist and Senior Specialist could be promoted as Additional Director and Director or directly to the post of Director with 5 years of experience. (5). There was a third channel of promotion from the post of Medical Officer to the Leprosy side. Any Medical Officer with a post graduate degree in Med./PSM/Skin & V.D. with 5 years experience and with proper training in Leprosy could be promoted as Zonal Leprosy Officer and again with 5 years experience as State Leprosy Officer and from the post of State Leprosy Officer to the post of Additional Director and Director with 2 and 3 years experience respectively. (6). Admittedly the respondent No. 1 had adopted the channel of promotion in the general side i.e. Medical Officer, Sr. Medical Officer, Dy. Director and Joint Director, which post he was holding and the petitioner had chosen the Leprosy side i.e. Medical Officer, Z.L.O. and S.L.O. etc. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Z.L.O. from the year 1982-83 vide Annex. 1 and to the post of S.L.O. on 26.7.1994 vide Annex. 2 for the year 1988-89. The petitioner had applied and given his option towards Leprosy side vide his application dated 16.2.1987 (Annex. 5) stating therein that he had experience of one and a half year as C.A.S. & Tutor Skin and V.D. Department at R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur, whereas, the respondent No. 1, as stated by the petitioner, had given his option towards the general line and he had specifically requested that he should be considered for the post of Deputy Director which post is only towards the general line and he had shown his intention that he is not interested in the Junior Specialist line. His applications have been attached as Annexs. 3 and 4 dated 8.4.1987 and 25.3.1991 to the writ petition. His applications have been attached as Annexs. 3 and 4 dated 8.4.1987 and 25.3.1991 to the writ petition. The Government had prescribed the qualifications for the post of Z.L.O. i.e. 3 years service after obtaining post graduate degree in General Medicine and with 5 years experience in Leprosy work and it was further mentioned that if the persons are not available with the required experience in Leprosy work then in that situation the qualification would be the same as prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. The Governments letter is attached as Annex. 6. (7). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal Annex. 12 stating therein that he had joined as C.A.S. in the year 1970. He was made permanent on the said post in the year 1977. He passed the M.D. (PSM) in January 1980. It is stated that from February 1980 the petitioner had worked as Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Health) and serviced Survey Education and Treatment Centre (SETC) in Leprosy and had acquired experience in Leprosy in the process and he had thereafter, requested for his posting towards Leprosy side. He had obtained Leprosy training in the year 1987 prior to 1.4.1988. He remained posted on the post of Sample Survey Officer in Leprosy from April, 1987 and he was promoted to the post of ZLO on 3.5.1994 and again as SLO on 26.7.1994 as he had 5 years experience on the post. The petitioner states that the respondent No. 1 had already availed of the option and promotion to the post of Assistant Director Health Services (Health) vide order dated 3.7.1986 against the vacancy of 1981- 82. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was posted as ZLO vide order dated 27.10.1987 but he did not join and obtained a stay order from the Court of Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur on the ground that he did not want to make Leprosy as his career. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was posted as ZLO vide order dated 27.10.1987 but he did not join and obtained a stay order from the Court of Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur on the ground that he did not want to make Leprosy as his career. According to the submission of the petitioner, the posting in Leprosy department would have downgraded social status and prestige and, therefore, the respondent No. 2, at no point of time was willing to work in the Leprosy Wing and when a chance was given to him, he had filed a civil suit against his posting in the Leprosy whereas the petitioner had submitted his bio data showing his willingness to join Leprosy Wing and the petitioner was sent for training in April 1987 in the Leprosy Wing and after completing his training from Central Leprosy Training and Research Institute, Chingalpattu, Tamil Nadu the petitioner was fully qualified to be posted as ZLO. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner alongwith Dr. Ram Prakash Bhatnagar and Dr. P.K. Purohit were considered for the post of ZLO on the basis of seniority-cum-merit for the vacancies of the year 1982-83 and after considering the cases of all the eligible persons, the petitioner was so promoted as he fulfilled all the qualifications. The petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 had no cause of action and, therefore, he should not have challenged the promotion of the petitioner either to the post of ZLO or SLO. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 had opted for the channel of promotion towards the general side, as stated above and had refused to opt for promotion towards the Leprosy side and, therefore, he was estopped from challenging the promotions of the doctors including the petitioner working in the Leprosy channel. It is stated by the petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal that on 1.4.1982 the experience of the petitioner was not complete is totally wrong. As a matter of fact, the respondent No. 1 had never taken the ground of experience in his memo of appeal before the Tribunal. Even according to the finding of the Tribunal the petitioner had completed 5 years experience on 31.3.1988. As a matter of fact, the respondent No. 1 had never taken the ground of experience in his memo of appeal before the Tribunal. Even according to the finding of the Tribunal the petitioner had completed 5 years experience on 31.3.1988. Therefore, in accordance with the provision of Rule 24-A (11-A) he was entitled to promotion to the post of SLO in the year 1988-89. (8). The State Government has filed the written-statement and has stated that for the channel of promotion towards the Leprosy side, one has to possess post graduate degree and is also supposed to possess the prescribed training in Leprosy Eradication Programme from a recognised institution. It is stated that for the post of SLO against the vacancy of the year 1988-89 only the petitioner was available who had acquired the required/prescribed training in the Leprosy Eradication Programme before 31.3.1988 and the respondent No. 1 had not acquired the training and, therefore, there was no question of his consideration for the said post in any manner whatsoever. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had also filed two writ petitions No. 3870/89 and 7007/93 seeking his promotion towards the general cadre line only. It is submitted that the promotion in question are fully covered under Rule 24A of the Rules of 1963. It is further submitted by the State that the respondent No. 1 had refused to be considered for the specialist side and he has simultaneously declined his choice to all other cadres including the Leprosy cadre and when an opportunity was given to the respondent No. 1 in the year 1987 by putting him on Leprosy side against the post of ZLO Jaipur, he had specifically refused to be posted towards Leprosy side and had filed a civil suit in this regard and the copy of the civil suit has been attached as Annex. R. 2/2. The respondent No. 1 has also filed a written statement and has reiterated his grounds as taken by him in the appeal before the Tribunal. (9). Under the Schedule 1 appended to the Rules of 1963 the post of State Leprosy Officer is to be filled up by promotion from the post of ZLO and the qualifications mentioned therein are 5 years experience on the post of ZLO, 45 days training in Leprosy and 5 years field experience in Leprosy Control Programme. (9). Under the Schedule 1 appended to the Rules of 1963 the post of State Leprosy Officer is to be filled up by promotion from the post of ZLO and the qualifications mentioned therein are 5 years experience on the post of ZLO, 45 days training in Leprosy and 5 years field experience in Leprosy Control Programme. Similarly for the post of ZLO mentioned at S. No. 9 in Schedule 1, this post is to be filled up 100 % by way of promotion from amongst the Medical Officers with post graduate degree in Medicine or Skin & V.D. or Preventive and Social Medicine, 5 years experience in the field of Leprosy Eradication Programme and 45 days training in Leprosy Eradication Programme in any Institution recognised by Medical Council of India/Government of Rajasthan. It is admitted that ZLO and SLO are two separate cadres. Similarly the post of Sr. Medical Officer mentioned at S. No. 8 is to be filled up from amongst the Medical Officer with 8 years experience. The post of Deputy Director/Chief Medical and Health Officer/Additional Chief Medical and Health Offi- cer etc. mentioned at S. No. 6 is to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst Senior Medical Officer/Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer and from the post of Deputy Director the promotion is to be made to the post of Joint Director and Additional Director and Director as per items No. 3, 2 and 1 mentioned in the Schedule 1, which clearly prescribes the different cadres and different mode of pro- motions towards general channel and Leprosy channel. (10). Rule 24A provides the revised criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to Junior, Senior and other posts encadred in the service. The relevant sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 24A prescribes as under : ``(1) As soon as the Appointing Authority determines the number of vacancies under rule regarding determination of vacancies of these rules and decides that a certain number of posts are required to be filled in by promotion, it shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (9), prepare a correct and complete list of the senior most persons who are eligible and qualified under these rules for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or on the basis of merit to the class of posts concerned. (2) The persons enumerated in column 5 or the relevant column regarding ``post from which promotion is to be made, as the case may be, of the relevant Schedule shall be eligible for promotion to posts specified against them in column 2 thereof to the extent indicated in column 3 subject to their possessing minimum qualifications and experience on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection as specified in column 6 or in the relevant column regarding ``minimum qualification and experience for promotion, as the case may be. (11). The only question which arises in the present case is whether the respondent No. 1 was qualified to be considered for promotion either to the post of ZLO or SLO. It is admitted by the respondent No. 1 that he was not eligible, nor did he possess the qualifications to be promoted to the post of ZLO or SLO, whereas, on the other hand, it is not denied that the petitioner did possess the qualification being holding the post of Tutor in Skin and V.D. since 24.10.1978 and from 1977 to 1979 while posted against the post of CAS and Tutor in Skin and V.D. and worked in T.B. Research. The petitioner has also placed on record an attested copy of his service book wherein it has been mentioned that vide the order passed by the Prin- cipal, R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur the petitioner had been working in the Skin and V.D. as CAS and Tutor at General Hospital, Udaipur against a vacant post from 2.12.1977. The petitioner had been discharging the duties as CAS cum Tutor in Skin and V.D. and Leprosy from 2.12.1977 to 28.2.1979 in the General Hospital Udaipur as per the counter affidavit of the petitioner. The State had filed the details of the experience of the petitioner as on 1.4.1982 i.e. 3 years and 5 months, whereas the respondent No. 1 had no experience whatsoever towards the Leprosy side. (12). The Tribunal has erred in law in setting aside the order of promotion of the petitioner. The State had filed the details of the experience of the petitioner as on 1.4.1982 i.e. 3 years and 5 months, whereas the respondent No. 1 had no experience whatsoever towards the Leprosy side. (12). The Tribunal has erred in law in setting aside the order of promotion of the petitioner. From a bare reading of the 1963 Rules, it is very clear that for promotion to the post of ZLO/SLO only those persons could be considered for pro- motion who had training and experience in Leprosy in addition to the basic qualifications of post graduate degree as well as experience as Medical Officer and for the promotional post of SLO the promotion could only be made from the post of ZLO which was a cent percent promotional post. Admittedly the petitioner was holding the training certificate in Leprosy alongwith experience of more than 3 yrs. in the year 1982 and had acquired the qualification of Medical Officer with requisite experience. He was rightly considered for promotion to post of ZLO for the year 1982-83 and similarly from the post of ZLO as per the rules he was rightly promoted after consideration to the post of SLO as only ZLO could be promoted to the post of SLO. The respondent No. 1 had no such qualifications, training or experience to- wards Leprosy side and, therefore, there was no fault in the orders of promotion of the petitioner made to the post of ZLO or SLO. (13). The respondent No. 1 could also be non-suited on the ground that he had specifically chosen to opt for promotion towards the general side and he was so promoted in that channel. He was given an option as far back as in the year 1987 for being posted towards Leprosy channel which posting he had declined and even had gone to the extent of filing a suit for getting an injunction against the posting towards Leprosy side. For whatever reasons he might have not chosen to go towards the Leprosy side, the respondent No. 1 cannot say now that he was entitled to be considered for the post of SLO only because of the of the reason that he was senior as Medical Officer. The seniority is to be counted for promotion from the certain cadre from which cadre the promotion is to be effected. The seniority is to be counted for promotion from the certain cadre from which cadre the promotion is to be effected. The respondent No. 1 was promoted on seniority basis towards the general cadre and went upto the post of Deputy Director after having been promoted as Sr. Medical Officer. The petitioner had opted towards Leprosy channel and he had acquired the requisite qualification, he got promotions from the year when the vacancy existed in a particular cadre of ZLO or SLO. If while being promoted to different cadres and in different channels of promotion and if per chance any of the party is entitled to a further promotion to the post of Additional Director from his respective channel, he is entitled to the same after being found eligible and fit for further promotion i.e. Additional Director. No grievance can be made by the respondent No. 1 in this regard against promotion of any of the incumbents and of the post of SLO for the promotion of Additional Director if said promotion is made from amongst the SLO in his own right from the cadre of SLO to the higher cadre. The order of the Tribunal Annex. 1 cannot be sustained for the reasons given above. (14). In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order Annex. 1 dated 31.3.1995 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No orders as to costs.