NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7th April 1999 in Writ Petition No. 28182 of 1998. The appellant herein filed the said Writ Petition calling in question the action of the Management of the Karnataka Land Army corporation Limited, the first respondent herein, in promoting the respondents 2 to 5 herein as Assistant Directors on incharge basis with effect from 29. 04. 1989 and on regular basis with effect from 01. 11. 1989. ( 2 ) THE events that lead to the filing of the Writ Petition be noted briefly as under: the appellant-Writ Petitioner was appointed as TASK FORCE commander (TFC) on 30 July, 1984 on temporary basis. The respondents 2 to 5 were also similarly appointed to the post of the tfc on temporary basis by the first respondent management. Subsequently, the services of the writ petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 5 in the post of TFC were regularized with effect from 15. 05. 1987. Admittedly, among the writ petitioner and respondent 2 to 5 in the cadre of TFC, the petitioner was placed above respondents 2 to 5 both in provisional seniority list dated ( 3 ) 03. 1991 and final seniority list dated 01. 04. 1998. When the matter stood thus, the Management of the first respondent Corporation placed respondents 2 to 5 oh incharge basis in the post of Assistant director with effect from 29. 4. 1989. Subsequently, respondents 2 to 5 were promoted on regular basis to the said post with effect from 01. 11. 1989. 3. After the above event, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8891 of 1993. One Sri M. S. Manjunath, also filed Writ Petition No. 8890 of 1993. In both the Writ Petitions, the appellant and Sri M. S. Manjunath prayed for the following reliefs:"i) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Director from the date when Respondents No. 2 to 6 have been promoted and direct the first respondent to give all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including seniority, monetary benefits etc. , and ii) Pass such other orders as may be deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case, including the award of costs of these writ petitions, in the interest of justice and equity. " ( 4 ) IN response to Rule nisi issued in those Writ Petitions, the first respondent-Corporation put in appearance and submitted to the Court that the seniority list on the basis of which respondents 2 to 5 were promoted to the cadre of Assistant Director was only a provisional seniority list and they would consider the objections filed by the writ petitioners thereby meaning the appellant herein and sri Manjunath and, after preparation of the final seniority list, they would review the promotions already made and they would make regular promotions on the basis of such final seniority list. In view of this submission made on behalf of the first respondent- corporation, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ petition Nos. 8890 and 8891 of 1993 on 18th August 1997. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Writ Order read as follows:"2. I have heard Mr. K. Gopal Hegde, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. He submits that Annexure-B is a provisional seniority list and that the objections filed by the petitioners will be considered. 3. In the light of the fact that the seniority list relied on by the petitioners for claiming seniority over respondents Nos. 2 to 6 is a provisional seniority list, and direction is given to the 1 respondent to finalise the seniority list and make a final seniority list within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order and make regular promotions to the higher cadre of Assistant Directors in accordance with final seniority list. With this direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. " ( 5 ) LATER, the appellant complaining that the Management of the first respondent-Corporation did not comply with the directions of the Court issued in W. P. Nos. 8890 and 8891 of 1993, filed Contempt of Court Case No. 94/98 (Civil ). In that contempt case, on behalf of the management of the first respondent - Corporation, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a final seniority list had been prepared and circulated. 8890 and 8891 of 1993, filed Contempt of Court Case No. 94/98 (Civil ). In that contempt case, on behalf of the management of the first respondent - Corporation, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a final seniority list had been prepared and circulated. In that view of the matter, learned judge did not think it appropriate to take any further action in the contempt case and accordingly, dropped the proceedings by order dated 29th June 1998. ( 6 ) SINCE no relief was granted to the appellant-petitioner, the appellant filed another Writ Petition No. 28182 of 1998 praying for the relief already noticed above and also for a consequential direction to the management of the first respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the appellant and to promote him to the post of Assistant Director with effect from the same date on which his immediate juniors namely respondents 2 to 5 were promoted with all consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherwise. The Writ petition was opposed by the first respondent as well as the contesting respondent 2 to 5. Learned Single Judge, having considered the pleadings and documents placed before him and having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Parties, in the absence of the records relating to the DPC proceedings, observed thus:"it is indeed unfortunate that a public sector Corporation should express its inability to produce the relevant record dealing with valuable rights of its employees. No explanation has been advanced as to how the record has disappeared. All that was produced by Mr. Hiriyanna, Counsel for the Corporation, was a register according to which a certain register dealing with the promotion orders was sent to Mrs. Ramachandra Counsel for the corporation from where it appears to have been lost. It is high time that the Corporation sets his house in order and takes appropriate action against those found guilty of dereliction of duty resulting in the disappearance of the record for whatever reason or considerations. " ( 7 ) IN the above premise, learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions:"in the result this writ petition is allowed but only in part and to the extent that the respondent-Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asst. " ( 7 ) IN the above premise, learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions:"in the result this writ petition is allowed but only in part and to the extent that the respondent-Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asst. Director against any existing vacancy or vacancy that may arise in future along with all other eligible candidates in accordance with law. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. " ( 8 ) THE above order was made by the learned Single Judge on 7th April 1999. It is stated that in pursuance of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the candidature of the appellant was considered by the Management of the first respondent-Corporation for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and he was promoted to that post with effect from 22. 06. 2002. ( 9 ) THE appellant, however, not being satisfied with the partialrelief granted by the learned Single Judge has come up with the present writ appeal. ( 10 ) WE have heard Sri K. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri Narasimhan, learned Standing Counsel for the management and learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 2 to 5. Let us refer to all the undisputed facts at the threshold, because, in our considered opinion, these facts themselves answer the question brought before the Court convincingly. In the provisional as well as final seniority lists of TFC, admittedly, thereby meaning that even according to the management as well as the contesting respondents 2 to 5, the appellant was placed above the contesting respondents 2 to 5. This position is clearly stated in the pleading of the first respondent- corporation as well as the pleading of the fifth respondent. The second relevant factor to be noticed is that the promotion from the post of TFC to the post of Assistant Director under the relevant recruitment rules governing the post of Assistant Director is by the method 'seniority-cum-merit' or sometimes called 'seniority-cum- suitability'. Therefore, when the management of the first respondent- corporation proceeded to promote contesting respondents 2 to 5 with effect from 01. 11. Therefore, when the management of the first respondent- corporation proceeded to promote contesting respondents 2 to 5 with effect from 01. 11. 1989, it ought to have considered the candidature of the appellant in the first instance and only in the event of the DPC constituted by the management finding the writ appellant unsuitable or otherwise disqualified for any valid reason, ought to have proceeded to consider the candidatures of respondents 2 to 5 who are admittedly juniors to the appellant in the feeder cadre. It is quite often held and reiterated by the Courts that there is a clear distinction between the methods to be adopted between 'promotion by seniority-cum-merit and 'promotion by selection'. In the case of 'promotion by the method seniority-cum- merit', the recruiting agency is required to consider case of the first person in the seniority list separately and individually and only in the event of it not finding that candidate suitable or otherwise disqualified for one or the other valid reasons, it can proceed to consider the candidature of the next official in the seniority list. This procedure has to be repeated by the DPC till it selects required number of candidates to the promotional post. Whereas, in the case of 'promotion by way of selection', the candidates who come under zone of consideration are placed before the DPC and the DPC would consider relative merits of all those candidates and select required number of candidates for the post in question among the best of the lot, regardless of inter se seniority of those candidates in the feeder cadre. Seniority will play a marginal role only when dpc finds two or more equally meritorious candidates and in such event, the senior most in the feeder cadre will be preferred for the promotional posts. The method to be adopted for selection and recruitment to the post of Assistant Director on regular basis is by way of selection. Therefore, it is the burden of the first respondent- corporation particularly, in the context of the specific allegation made by the appellant, to satisfactorily convince the Court that before promoting respondents 2 to 5 on regular basis to the post of assistant Director with effect from 01. 11. 1989, the DPC constituted by it, in fact, considered the candidature of the appellant and he was overlooked for some valid and cogent reasons. 11. 1989, the DPC constituted by it, in fact, considered the candidature of the appellant and he was overlooked for some valid and cogent reasons. The records of the DPC would have thrown light on the question whether the dpc had considered the candidature of the appellant or not? But, curiously and for the reasons best known to the management of the first respondent-Corporation, an affidavit dated 20. 02. 2003 was filed before us on 25. 02. 2003 at the time of hearing, pleading its inability to trace and place the records of the DPC before this Court. We have perused the said affidavit. The averments in the affidavit are totally unconvincing. The Corporation does not even fix accountability for loss of records on any official. However, learned counsel for the fifth respondent drew our attention to the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph -7 of the order impugned in the writ appeal and would point out that the learned Single Judge had occasion to peruse the original records and according to the learned Single Judge, the committee constituted by the Management had scrutinized the case of all the eligible candidates and evaluated them on the basis of seniority-cum-merit before selecting respondents 2 to 5 for appointment in incharge capacity in the post of Assistant Director. The relevant observation of the learned Single Judge in Paragraph-7 reads as follows: this brings me to the alternate submission made by the respondents. The record produced by the Corporation shows that a Committee of Executive Deputy Directors was constituted for purpose of making incharge arrangements against the available vacancies in the cadre of Asst. Directors. The order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 29th April 1989 the genuineness whereof has not been disputed by the petitioner clearly shows that the Committee had scrutinized the cases of all eligible candidates and evaluated them on the basis of merit and seniority. Based on the said evaluation the Committee had recommended the names of seven persons including respondents 2 to 5 for purposes of placing them incharge of the higher post of Asst. Directors. The Chairman had approved the said recommendations and issued the requisite orders accordingly. Based on the said evaluation the Committee had recommended the names of seven persons including respondents 2 to 5 for purposes of placing them incharge of the higher post of Asst. Directors. The Chairman had approved the said recommendations and issued the requisite orders accordingly. " ( 11 ) THE above observations of the learned Judge in no way would advance the case of the management to show that the candidature of the appellant was considered and his candidature was rejected for some or other valid reasons before respondents 2 to 5 were considered and promoted to the post of. Assistant Director on regular basis with effect from 01. 11. 1989. From the above observation of learned Single Judge, what is quite clear is that learned Single Judge had occasion to peruse the proceedings of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director conducted on 29th April 1989 on which date the respondents 2 to 5 were placed in the post of assistant Director on incharge basis. Learned Judge nowhere in the judgment has referred to the proceedings of the DPC which lead to the promotion of the respondents 2 to 5 to the post of assistant Director on regular basis with effect from 01. 11. 1989. On the other hand, learned Judge himself has pointed out that that record was not placed before the Court. ( 12 ) FROM the records, it is seen that after the services of the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5 were regularized in the post of TFC with effect from 15. 5. 1987 and they were placed on probation, the probation of the appellant was initially declared on 23. 10. 1990. However, by an official memorandum dated 25. 10. 1990 the probation of the writ appellant was declared with effect from 23. 10. 1990. In the Confidential Report for the year 1989-1990, the appellant was recommended to be fit for promotion both by Initiating officer as well as by the Managing Director. If that is so, we are at a loss to understand how such a candidate could be disqualified or found unsuitable by the DPC. Be that as it may, we need not dilate on this aspect, because, the management has not produced the dpc proceedings. If that is so, we are at a loss to understand how such a candidate could be disqualified or found unsuitable by the DPC. Be that as it may, we need not dilate on this aspect, because, the management has not produced the dpc proceedings. In the circumstances and in the absence of any proof produced by the Management of the first respondent that the candidature of the appellant-petitioner was considered and rejected to the post of Assistant Director before promoting respondents 2 to 5 with effect from 01. 11. 1989, the general principle governing promotion by method of 'seniority-cum-merit' should be applied. If that principle is applied, it is trite, the appellant should have been considered and appointed to the post of Assistant director before his juniors were considered and appointed or atleast with effect from the same date on which'his juniors were promoted. ( 13 ) REALISING the weakness in the case of contesting respondents, learned Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would strenuously contend that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of laches without going into the merits of the matter. Learned Counsel, in support of his contention would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. S. SADASIVASWAMY vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU. Although in the above case, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the aggrieved parties in the matters of seniority and promotion should approach the constitutional Courts for relief within a reasonable time, that principle is not applicable to the facts of this case. As already pointed out supra, on an earlier occasion, the writ appellant and sri Manjunath had filed Writ Petitions Nos. 8890 and 8891 of 1993 in this Court. In those Writ Petitions, the promotions of resppndents 2 to 5 to the post of Assistant Director were assailed. The management did not oppose those Writ Petitions on ground of laches and, on the other hand, it submitted to the Court that it would prepare final seniority list and then it would review promotions made. We are fully satisfied that the appellant-petitioner had made out an excellent case to succeed in this Writ Petition and if relief is denied to him that would result in substantive injustice to the Writ appellant. We are fully satisfied that the appellant-petitioner had made out an excellent case to succeed in this Writ Petition and if relief is denied to him that would result in substantive injustice to the Writ appellant. In that view of the matter, it would be inappropriate for the Court to refuse relief to the appellant on the ground of delay and laches. ( 14 ) IN the result, writ appeal is allowed and in substitution of the order of the learned Single Judge, we direct the first respondent- corporation to promote the appellant to the post of Assistant Director on regular basis with effect from the date on which the respondents 2 to 5 were promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherwise. --- *** --- .