The petitioner belongs to Bodo Kochari Community (Scheduled Castes). In 1985 he passed HSLC Examination under the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. Earlier to it on 24.11.83 the petitioner was appointed as office peon in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gossaigaon. In 1988 he completed a Diploma course in typing in English and Assamese. On 22.12.88 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Jarikarak in the same office of SDO (Civil). Gossaigapn. On 9.5.93 a gradation list for Grade IV employees in the establishment of SDO (Civil), Gossaigaon was published showing the petitioner in serial No. 5. On 18.4.94 a provisional gradation list for Grade IV employees of amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar was published showing the petitioner in' serial No. 33 and the respondent No. 3 in serial No. 34 arid the respondent No. 4 in serial No. 43. On 10.12.96 there was a notice asking the Grade IV employees of the Deputy Commissioner's establishment who have completed continuous 7 years service with typing experience to appear before the Selection Board for promotion to Grade III post. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Board. It is contended that the Select List was not published by the concerned authority. That is denied by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by filing affidavit stating that the Select List was duly published. On 10.3.97 the respondent No. 2 by an order promoted the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of LDA and they were posted in Food and Civil Supplies Branch, at Gossaigaon and Kokrajhar. The contention of the petitioner is that he is senior to the respondent Nos 3 and 4 as because the petitioner was appointed on 30.11.83 whereas the respondent No. 3 on 1.7.84 and the respondent No. 4 on 30.9.85 respectively. On 11.3.97 a representation was filed with a pray of to review the order of promotion but the same was not disposed of. the claim of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 promoted the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by superseding the petitioner and in violation of rules that is Assam Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1967. 2. I have heard Mr. RL Yadav, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. GN Sahewalta, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos 3 and 4 and Mr. Talukdar, learned GA, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. 3 and 4 by superseding the petitioner and in violation of rules that is Assam Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1967. 2. I have heard Mr. RL Yadav, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. GN Sahewalta, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos 3 and 4 and Mr. Talukdar, learned GA, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Yadav, places reliance on the following decision (i) AIR 1908 SC 2565 (BV Siviah & others vs. K. Addanki Babu & others) wherein paragraphs 8,10 and 18 has pointed out as follows : “In the matter of formulation of a policy for promotion to a higher post, the two competing principles which are taken into account are inter se seniority and comparative merit of employees who are eligible for promotion. In Santi Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (1968)1 SCR 15: ( AIR 1967 SC 1910 ) this Court has pointed out that the principle of seniority ensures absolute objectivity by requiring all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority and that if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who had served longest in the post immediately below. But the seniority system is so objective that it fails to take any account of personal merit. It is fair to every official except the best ones, an official has nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually become so inefficient that disciplinary action has to be taken against him. The criterion of merit, on the other hand, lays stress on meritorious performance irrespective of seniority and even! person though junior but much more meritorious than his seniors is selected for promotion. The Court has expressed the view that there should be a correct balance between seniority and merit in a proper promotion policy. The criteria of 'seniority-cum-merit and 'merit-cum-seniority' which take into account seniority as well as merit seek achieve such a balance. On the other hand, as between the two principles of seniority and merit, .the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on seniority. The criteria of 'seniority-cum-merit and 'merit-cum-seniority' which take into account seniority as well as merit seek achieve such a balance. On the other hand, as between the two principles of seniority and merit, .the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on seniority. In State of Mysore vs. Syed Mahmood, (1968) 3 SCR 363 : (AIR 1968 SGI 113), while considering Rule 4 (3) (b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, this Court has observed that die rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of "seniority subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible for promotion." It was pointed out that where the promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit die officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted. In State of Kerala vs. NM Thomas (1976) 1 SCR 906 : ( AIR 1976 SC 490 ) AN Ray, CJ has thus explained the criterion of seniority-cum-merit: “With regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit seniority-cum-merit means make given die necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration die seniority though the less meritorious shall have priority (p 930 of SCR (at P- 500 para 38 of AIR).” We thus arrive at the conclusion dial die criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' in the matter of promotion postulates mat given die minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration die senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing die minimum necessary merit die competent authority can lay down die minimum standard that is required and also prescribe die mode of assessment of merit of die employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing die minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on die basis 'seniority-cum-merit”. There is rid quarrel with this proposition of law and tills judgment is squarely binding on me. Mr. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing die minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on die basis 'seniority-cum-merit”. There is rid quarrel with this proposition of law and tills judgment is squarely binding on me. Mr. Sharma points out that the petitioner is not qualified to be promoted in accordance with law and rules in force. Rule 6 (5) (b) reads as follows: “(b) By selection on die basis of 'seniority-cum -merit' from amongst Grade IV staffs of die district establishment concerned who have passed toe Higher Secondary or equivalent examination and have rendered at least 7 years of continuous service in die district establishment on die first day of die year in which selection is made.” So the requirement is that the person must pass the Higher Secondary or equivalent examination. The case of the respondent is that die petitioner only passed the HSLC examination and the HSLC examination is not equivalent to Higher Secondary examination inasmuch as a person can pass Higher Secondary examination only after 2 years of the completion of HSLC examination. That is die qualification as laid down in Rule 7 (3) of the aforesaid Rules. But this rule was amended and the qualification was made HSLC examination. The Gazette notification amending die rule was produced before me. The petitioner was ignored on the basis of a non existing rule at the relevant time. So this application is allowed. The petitioner shall be promoted from the date of his juniors were , promoted, the authority shall pass necessary order within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. I make no order as to costs.