A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents at length. The petitioner joined as Assistant engineer in the Department of Irrigation, state of U. P. , in December 1966 on adhoc basis. Thereafter he appeared in the competitive Combined State Engineering services Examination conducted by U. P. Public Service Commission and declared successful in the year 1968 and joined on regular basis. His ad-hoc tenure was added with the tenure on regular basis. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer on 31. 1. 1988. While working as Executive Engineer he was communicated with certain remarks in his service record. Petitioner submitted a representation. Petitioner was, thereafter considered for next promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by the departmental Promotion Committee and promoted on 29. 10. 1999 to the post of superintending Engineer w. e. f. 12. 3. 1998. The petitioner, however, got aggrieved when matter of promotion to the post of chief Engineer (Level-II) in the department arose. ( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that DPC did not find favour with the petitioners candidature, his candidature ignored and promotion to the next higher post denied to him while juniors considered and accorded promotion. It is also contended that such juniors had much less quality points as compared to the petitioner who was eligible to get 19 quality points. ( 4 ) IN para 14 to the Writ Petition, it is categorically pleaded that criterion for promotion to the post in question is seniority-cum-merif to be determined on the basis of entries in the Character Roll preceding last ten years. The said para 14 has been replied vide para 7 of the counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents (sworn by one l. B. Singh ). The categorical averments in para 14 of the Writ petition to the effect that promotion was on the basis of criterion seniority-cum-merif has not been denied. ( 5 ) THE meaning of expression seniority-cum-merit came up for consideration before the Apex Court and the same has been explained in the case of b. V. Sivaiah and others Versus K. Addanki Babu and others- (1998) 6 SCC 720 pp 726 (Paras 9,10 and 11)- which are, for convenience, reproduced: - "9. ( 5 ) THE meaning of expression seniority-cum-merit came up for consideration before the Apex Court and the same has been explained in the case of b. V. Sivaiah and others Versus K. Addanki Babu and others- (1998) 6 SCC 720 pp 726 (Paras 9,10 and 11)- which are, for convenience, reproduced: - "9. The principle of "merit-cum-seniority" lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. In the context of rule 5 (2) of the Indian Administrative service/indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which prescribed that "selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority" Mathew, J. in union of India V. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (Lands) 5, has said: (SCCp 856 para 37) (F) or inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should be the governing consideration and that seniority should play only a secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a determining factor, or, if it is not fairly possible to make an assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two eligible candidates and come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt the scale. " ( 6 ) SIMILARLY, Beg, J. (as the learned chief Justice then was) has said: (SCC P. 851, para 22) "22. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the entrance or inclusion test for a place on the select list, is competitive and comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. The selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor. " 10. On the other hand, as between the two principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of "seniority-cum-merit" lays greater emphasis on seniority. " 10. 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 V. Mahmood 3 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 the 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, the 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 the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted. 11. In State of Kerala V. N. M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 : 1976 SCC (Lands) 227, AN. Ray, C. J. has thus explained the criterion of "seniority-cum-merit": (SCCp. 335, para 38 ). "with regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority. " 1, In the case of Manna Prasad jaiswal Versus District Inspector of schools, Deoria and others-1999 allahabad civil Journal 1021, (Pr. 12), a division Bench of this Court had the occasion to explain the meaning of the expression-"seniority subject to rejection of Unfit"- in the following words-"12. In B. V. Sivaiah (supra) the supreme Court has held that "criterion of seniority-cum-merit in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. " It was further held in that case that for assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. It would be seen from Rule 16 of the Rules that it does not lay down any standard of judging the minimum merit apart from prescribing the standard of judging unfitness. It would be seen from Rule 16 of the Rules that it does not lay down any standard of judging the minimum merit apart from prescribing the standard of judging unfitness. In other words of merit of a teacher for the purpose of promotion under rule 16 is that no criminal case involving moral turpitude is pending enquiry or trial against him; and/or no disciplinary proceeding is being conducted against him. Absence of the disabilities referred to in clause (b) of the Explanation to Rule 16 of the Rules, in our opinion, would be taken to be merit for the purpose of giving ad-hoc promotion on the basis of"seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Accordingly keeping in view the distinction, albeit very thin between the principles of "seniority-cum-merit" and "seniority subject to rejection of unfit" we are of the considered view that for the purpose of ad-hoc promotion in Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the rules, seniority will prevail except where the senior teacher suffers from any of the demerits referred to in clause (b) of the explanation appended to Rule 16. In so far as assessment of job performance is concerned, the same is not comprehended unwed rule 16 of the Rules and since ad-hoc promotion under Section 18 is required to be made in the manner prescribed in the Rules aforestated, it would not be permissible to cull out any other criterion of ad-hoc promotion. On the admitted facts the order passed by the district Inspector of Schools, in our opinion, id not suffer from any infirmity and the Learned Single Judge was not right in remitting the mater to the District inspector of Schools with a direction to re-examine the matter on the basis of comparative assessment of the merits of the rival claimants. " ( 7 ) IN para 19 of the Writ Petition, petitioner has given details of the entries awarded to him during 1989-90 to 1999-2000. It shows that the petitioner had earned three entries for three years good, four years entries outstanding, and one years entry very good. ( 8 ) FURTHER in para 29 of the Writ petition it is asserted that on the basis of relevant entries in the Character Roll he was entitled to 19 points on merit before dpc. It shows that the petitioner had earned three entries for three years good, four years entries outstanding, and one years entry very good. ( 8 ) FURTHER in para 29 of the Writ petition it is asserted that on the basis of relevant entries in the Character Roll he was entitled to 19 points on merit before dpc. ( 9 ) IN para 30 of the Writ Petition it is contended that the DPC which met in march, 2000 for considering promotion of superintending Engineer to the higher post, without rhyme or reason, refused to recommend the name of the petitioner on the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) level-II and instead recommended name of juniors to him. Para 19,29,30 and 31 of the Writ petition have been replied vide para 9, 14 and 15 of the Counter Affidavit. Contents of para 19 of the Writ petition, wherein petitioner has elaborated his character roll entries, have not been denied. ( 10 ) THE respondents merely questioned the propriety of the Petitioner having knowledge of the confidential entries. Respondents have not, as of fact, denied contents of para 19 of the Writ petition. How petitioner came to know of the entries is not relevant for our purpose. ( 11 ) IN para 19 and 21 of the Counter affidavit again it is being alleged that criterion for promotion is the merit and that petitioners name was ignored by the dpc because of the service record of the petitioner not being up to the mark. ( 12 ) THE respondents have however not taken the trouble to point out categorically the material which has been taken into account against the petitioner or the relevant rule providing for the criterion of promotion. ( 13 ) IN other words it has not been pointed out which year entries have been found not good and what was the material on the basis of which the members of dpc did not find the petitioners candidature to be considered for promotion. ( 14 ) AVERMENTS in para 29 of the Writ petition (that petitioner was entitled to 19 quality points on merit, to be awarded on the basis of service record/character Roll)have not been specifically denied in para 14 of the Counter Affidavit. ( 14 ) AVERMENTS in para 29 of the Writ petition (that petitioner was entitled to 19 quality points on merit, to be awarded on the basis of service record/character Roll)have not been specifically denied in para 14 of the Counter Affidavit. ( 15 ) PERUSAL of the impugned order dated September 11,2000 Annexure 18 to the Writ Petition also does not disclose as to which records were taken into account and what was the material on the basis of which members of the DPC ignored the name of the petitioner for promotion. ( 16 ) IN view of unrebutted pleadings in the Writ Petition, referred to above, we find that name of the petitioner has been ignored without plausible justification. Impugned order contains no indication of the material which has been relied against the petitioner. ( 17 ) IN view of the above, the impugned order dated September 11, 2000 is hereby quashed, concerned respondents and its authorities, servants, nominees, etc. are directed to consider the name of the Petitioner within four weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found fit for being promoted on the date on which his juniors were promoted, the petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits and privileges treating notionally promoted w. e. f. the date his juniors have been given promotion and place him just above the next person junior to him in the cadre of Superintending Engineer. 20. Writ Petition succeeds. No order as to costs. . .