JUDGMENT 1. - Short question that emerges in the instant writ petition is as to what is the scope of judicial review. Whether it is omitted to find out correctness of the process in reaching the decision or the decision as where. 2. The petitioner seeks direction to quash the order dated October 15, 5 1993 under the High Court (First respondent) whereby Vallabh Das Bora (Second respondent) was promoted as Deputy Registrar w.e.f. February 1, 1992, and instead to promote the petitioner with effect from the said date with all consequential benefits. 3. Grievance projected by the petitioner is that the post of Deputy to Registrar [Non-RJS] was to be filled in by way of selection pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (for short 1953 Rules') and comparative merit of all the five officers who were in the zone of consideration ought to have been assessed, but the High Court instead of assessing comparative merit, gave promotion to second respondent on the basis of his seniority. 4. The High Court filed written statement denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is pleaded by the High Court that Rule 9 was followed in letter and spirit and second respondent was rightly promoted. 5. We have heard the submissions and scanned the material placed before us. 6. Before elaborating further, and in order to explain the point of law which has arisen, we deem it appropriate to refer Rule 9 of 1953 Rules which provides as under: "9. Promotion to the posts carrying special responsibility or requiring special qualifications: (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Rules, promotions of the following posts carrying special responsibility requiring special qualifications shall be made by selection: (1) Dy. Registrar (Admn ) (2)........." It is evident from the above Rule that the post of Deputy Registrar is to be filled in by way of selection which clearly implies that the said post is to be filled in on the basis of the assessment of comparative merit amongst persons who are within the zone of consideration. 7. Registrar (Admn ) (2)........." It is evident from the above Rule that the post of Deputy Registrar is to be filled in by way of selection which clearly implies that the said post is to be filled in on the basis of the assessment of comparative merit amongst persons who are within the zone of consideration. 7. A look at the relevant record demonstrates that the Registry of the High Court found following five Private Secretaries cum Judgment Writers in the zone of consideration for giving promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar: (i) Vallabh Das Bora (Second Respondent) (ii) B.L. Dave (iii) R.C. Paliwal (Petitioner) (iv) Prem Prakasn Chauhan (v) Pushpendra Kumar Srivastava On October 14, 1993, service record and other relevant papers related to all the five Private Secretaries were placed before the Chief Justice for consideration to give promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar in and the Chief Justice on assessing the service record of all the five officers, adjudged. Vallabh Das Bora (second respondent) fit and suitable for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f. Feb. 1, 1992. 8. Mr. Raj Deepak Rastogi learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that service record of all the five officers was not comparatively assessed and 1 second respondent was promoted against a selection post, only on the ground that he was the senior most officer. Promotion given to second respondent, according to learned-counsel, was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel persuaded us to assess the comparative merit of the officers, quash the impugned order of promotion and promote the petitioner as Deputy Registrar w.e.f. Feb. 1, 1992 with all consequential benefits. 9. In the above background we proceed to examine the question that arises for our consideration. 10. It is well settled that promotion to selection post is to be based 25 primarily on merit and not on seniority alone. When the claim of officers to selection post is under consideration, seniority should not be regarded except where the merit of the officers is judged to be equal and no other criterion is available. The Apex Court in Central Council For Research in Ayurveda and Siddha & Anr. v. Dr. When the claim of officers to selection post is under consideration, seniority should not be regarded except where the merit of the officers is judged to be equal and no other criterion is available. The Apex Court in Central Council For Research in Ayurveda and Siddha & Anr. v. Dr. K. Sanath Kumari, (2001) 5 SCC 60 30 indicated that the promotion in respect of a selection post is to be made on the basis of the inter se merit of the eligible candidates. In Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan, (2000) 6 SCC 698 it was observed that in deciding whether a post is a selection post or not, one of the criteria to be considered is if it involves a comparative assessment of officers, necessarily the element of selection is involved and, therefore the post with which we are concerned is indeed a selection post although not totally ignoring a senior." 11. Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 however propounded that if cases of all eligible candidates are considered before appointments to the selection Cost, no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution occurs. 12. In the case on hand, while scanning the proceedings of the impugned promotion we noticed that the Chief Justice found second Respondent fit and suitable for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, after considering the service record of ail the five officers (including the petitioner) who were in the zone of consideration. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no illegality in decision making process as Rule 9 of 1953 Rules was strictly followed and the promotion was not violative of Articles 4 & 16 of the Constitution. 13. As we are not hearing the appeal against the impugned promotion carder, we are not concerned with the merit of the decision arrived at by the Chief Justice. Lord Fraser in Tully Belton in Amin v. Entry Clearance Officer, (1983) 2 All. E.R. 864 observed that "Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a decision but with the manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review is entirely different from an ordinary appeal." 14. Lord Fraser in Tully Belton in Amin v. Entry Clearance Officer, (1983) 2 All. E.R. 864 observed that "Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a decision but with the manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review is entirely different from an ordinary appeal." 14. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that judicial review is concerned with the reviewing not the merits of the decision, but the decision making process itself. Since the power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, the Court cannot substitute its own decision. It is not the function of a Judge to act as a super board or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. 15. In U.O.I. v. Lt. General Rajendra Singh Kadyan (supra) the Apex Court in para 99 held thus: "Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such." 16. For these reasons the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******