Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18/28.12.91, by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for a declaration that the petitioners seniority be counted in E-IV grade with effect from 192, the date on which junior to the petitioner, namely, respondent No. 4 was given promotion. 2. The petitioner is at present working as Superintending Engineer, Engineering Discipline posted at Sudamdih area under the respondent No. 1 namely, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The petitioners case is that after passing the diploma examination in Mining and Mines Surveying, he was appointed in the National Coal Development Corporation on 7-10-66 as a short firer in Gassy Mines and was posted at Saunda Colliery. In 1968 he was transferred to Sudamdih Project and since then he has been serving there is different posts. The petitioners further case is that in 1970 the NCDC held a test for selection in the Industrial, Engineering Department and the petitioner passed the said examination and was selected for the said Department. In 1971 he was promoted to the post of Overman. He was further promoted in Executive Grade II on 2-5-74, whereas, on the other hand, respondent No. 4 was appointed in 1969 and was promoted in Executive Grade II in 1975. The petitioners case is that though the respondent No. 4 was junior to the petitioner in E-I1 grade but he was given promotion on 19-3-91 in E-III grade without considering the case, of the petitioner. However, on protest the petitioner was also given promotion in E-III grade on 22-10-81. It is stated that the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was again considered and both of them were given promotion to E-III grade with effect, from 1-7-79. The petitioners further case is that the respondent No. 4 managed to get promotion in E-IV grade some time in June, 83 and the case of the petitioner was considered subsequently and he was promoted in E-IV grade on 2-8-83. It is stated that surprisingly, the respondent No. 4 was given promotion to .E-IV grade with retrospective effect i.e. from 19-6-82, to which the petitioner seriously protested. It is stated that surprisingly, the respondent No. 4 was given promotion to .E-IV grade with retrospective effect i.e. from 19-6-82, to which the petitioner seriously protested. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was not only given retrospective promotion from 19-6-82, but monetary benefits were also given to him, whereas the petitioner was not given promotion retrospectively by the respondents, which action was arbitrary. The petitioner filed several representations for giving him retrospective promotion. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2532/90(R) which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners representation and take a decision. It is stated that the petitioners representation for retrospective promotion was rejected by the respondents. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has never been superseded by his junior and his representation was thoroughly examined and he was informed about the decision of the management. The case of the respondents is that the respondent No. 4 has been associated with Industrial Engineering Disciplinary (I.E.D.) since 18-2-67, whereas the petitioner is with effect from 1970. It is stated that in erstwhile National Coal Development Corporation, there was no Industrial Engineering Discipline. All Industrial Engineering activities were carried out by Technical Personnel of Mining, Electrical and Mechanical Disciplines. The I.E.D. came into existence in 1975. The respondent No. 4 applied for his change of cadre from Mining to Industrial Engineering in 1975 and after due consideration, the change of cadre was accepted by the respondent No. 1 from Mining to Industrial Engineering Discipline in E-II grade. The petitioner was working with respondent No. 4, but did not apply for change in discipline and waited till 19-3-81 when respondent No. 4 was promoted as senior Industrial Engineer in E-III grade with notional seniority with effect from 1-5-79 without financial benefit. On 26-3-81 the petitioner applied for promotion without applying for change in discipline only after respondent No. 4 was promoted on 19-3-81, The respondents further case is that the petitioner tried for acquiring the certificate of First Class Mines Manager but failed and, therefore, taking advantage of his association with Industrial Engineering Activities asked for induction/promotion in Industrial Engineering Discipline. On 26-3-81 the petitioner applied for promotion without applying for change in discipline only after respondent No. 4 was promoted on 19-3-81, The respondents further case is that the petitioner tried for acquiring the certificate of First Class Mines Manager but failed and, therefore, taking advantage of his association with Industrial Engineering Activities asked for induction/promotion in Industrial Engineering Discipline. The respondent No. 1 considered his case and was inducted in I.E.D. with retrospective affect from 15-3-75 and promoted to the post of senior Industrial Engineer E-III grade with notional seniority with effect from 1-5-79, which was at par with the respondent No, 4. It is the specific case of the respondent No. 4 that promotion from one grade to another up to the level of E-3 is seniority-cum-merit and beyond E-3 grade is merit-cum-seniority as envisaged under paras 4 and 8 of the Company Coal Cadre framed by the Coal India, Promotion from one executive cadre to another is based upon recommendation of duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. It is stated that D.P.C. determines a number of eligible candidates to be considered at each time on the basis of number of vacancies available in the higher grade and recommended a panel of officers in order of merit. It is stated that in 1982 DPC was constituted for promotion of senior Industrial Engineers from E-3 grade to E-4 grade and the case of the petitioner along with others was considered. The said DPC, on the basis of qualification/experience/performance appraisal report along with service rendered in the existing grade including notional seniority granted in E-3 grade adjudge the seniority of the respondent No. 4 as outstanding and placed the petitioner at the bottom panel as his performance was not at par with the respondent No. 4 and others. In the counter-affidavit, a comparative qualification of the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner at the time of promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade has been mentioned and it is stated that in that aspect, the respondent No. 4 was more competent for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade. 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta and Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr. Sinha has made two fold submissions. 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta and Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr. Sinha has made two fold submissions. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that although the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 4 in E-2 and E-3 grade but. respondent No. 4 was given retrospective promotion with effect from 1982 which seriously effected the seniority of the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, no retrospective seniority can be given to an employee causing prejudice to other employees. Learned Counsel, secondly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get same benefit as given to respondent. No. 4, who was junior to petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that criteria for promotion from one cadre to another up to E-3 grade is "senioriry-cum-merit" and beyond E-3 grade is merit-cum-seniority" as envisaged under paras 4 and 8 of the Common Coal Cadre framed by Coal India. It also appears that promotion from one executive cadre to another is based upon recommendation of duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. In para 8 of reply to the counter-affidavit the petitioner admitted this fact that the criteria for giving promotion is "merit-cum-seniority". In the light, of the above provision, I will first consider the respective qualifications of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. The following are the comparative qualifications of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 at the time of promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade: Qualification of Respondent No. 4.- (i) Holder of First Class and Second Class Mine Managers certificate of competency. Mine Managers Certificate of Competency is the highest professional qualification in mining field for all purposes. (ii) Diploma in Mining and Mines Surveying (Ist Class). First Class Mine Managers Certificate along with Diploma in Mining and Mine Surveying is considered equivalent to AMIE (India), on this basis subsequently Respondent No. 4 became MIE (Membership No. M/048213/1). (iii) Certificate in advance productivity techniques (16 weeks residential course conducted by BPE at Staff College, HAL, Bangalore. This course covered Post-Graduate Industrial Engineering Curriculum. (iv) I.Sc. (Intermediate Science). Qualification of the petitioner- (i) Holder of Second Class Mine Managers Certificate of Competency. (ii) Diploma in Mining and Mine Surveying. (iii) B.Sc. Part-I. 6. (iii) Certificate in advance productivity techniques (16 weeks residential course conducted by BPE at Staff College, HAL, Bangalore. This course covered Post-Graduate Industrial Engineering Curriculum. (iv) I.Sc. (Intermediate Science). Qualification of the petitioner- (i) Holder of Second Class Mine Managers Certificate of Competency. (ii) Diploma in Mining and Mine Surveying. (iii) B.Sc. Part-I. 6. It has been categorically stated by the respondents that the Departmental Promotion Committee, on the basis of qualification/experience, performance, appraisal report including service rendered in the existing grade, adjudged the case of the respondent No. 4 as outstanding and the performance of the petitioner was not found at par with the respondent No. 4. It is, therefore, not a case where the case of the petitioner was not at all considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee rather the Committee did not find the petitioner better than the respondent No. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was promoted in E-3 grade in June, 83 with retrospective effect i.e., from 19-6-82 whereas the petitioners case was considered and he was promoted in E-4 grade from 2-8-83. 7. Be that as it may, admittedly the criteria for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade is "merit-cum-seniority" as envisaged in the Common Coal Cadre and having regard to the respective qualifications and performance the Departmental Promotion Committee found respondent No. 4 most deserving for promotion to E-4 grade instead of the petitioner, whose case was again considered subsequently and was given promotion to E-4 grade. 1 am, therefore, of the opinion that even assuming that the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 4 in E-3 grade but that cannot be a ground for promoting the petitioner in E-4 grade before respondent No. 4. The principle of "merit-cum-seniority" lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority can be given weightage when merit and ability are approximately equal. As held by the apex Court, an officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of B.V. Sivaiah V/s. K. Addanki Babu -- . 8. Seniority can be given weightage when merit and ability are approximately equal. As held by the apex Court, an officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of B.V. Sivaiah V/s. K. Addanki Babu -- . 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the respondents-authorities in rejecting the representation of the petitioner, vide Annexure-4, is not illegal, arbitrary or against the law or the Common Coal Cadre. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly, dismissed.