JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The writ petitioners in both the writ applications are judicial officers, who call in question the promotion of opp. party No. 2 to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I (Junior) (S.D.J.M.) by superseding them and six other senior officers in the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 is that, he was appointed as a probationary Munsif in the year 1985 and he has an excellent service record without any adverse remark in the C.C.R. The petitioner’s posi¬tion in the seniority list of the year 1992 was at serial No. 19, whereas the opp. party No.2 was at serial No. 20. Subsequently, by Gazette notification dated 1st January, 1994 under Rule 27 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as “O.J.S. Rules, 1964”) and pursuant to the direction of the Hon’¬ble Supreme Court, the petitioner’s seniority was refixed and he was placed at serial No. 8, whereas the seniority position of opp. party No. 2 was fixed at 9 of 1985 batch. A copy of the said Gazette Notification has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.The petitioner alleges that the High Court, while pro¬moting the officers from Orissa Judicial Service Class-II cadre of 1985 batch to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I (Junior) (S.D.J.M.), the petitioner’s case has been ignored and opp. party No. 2 has been promoted and placed at serial No. 1 of the 1985 batch in superseding 7 other such promoted officers by notification dated 28.6.1994, a copy of which is Annexure-3. The petitioner made a representation, copy of which is Annexure-4, pursuant to which, the Special Officer (Administration), of the High Court in his confidential letter dated 28.11.1994 communi¬cated the extract of the minutes of the Standing Committee dated 11.9.1993 and 10.4.1994 and the note of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice without disclosing any reason for supersession. A copy of the letter of the Special Officer (Administration) along with extract of the minutes of the Standing Committee and the note of the Chief Justice have been annexed as Annexure-5 series. The petitioner alleges that not only the opp. party No. 2 has got the promotion superseding him who is admittedly senior to him, but he is even placed at Sl. The petitioner alleges that not only the opp. party No. 2 has got the promotion superseding him who is admittedly senior to him, but he is even placed at Sl. No. 1 of the officers promoted from 1985 batch superseding 7 other senior officers promoted along with him without any reason or rhyme even though they all have good C.C.R. Petitioner alleged that presumably the C.C.R. and other records were not properly placed before the Standing Committee, at the time it considered the cases for promotions and, therefore, he claims promotion from 26.5.1994, the date, opp. party No. 2, who is admittedly junior in Class-II cadre was given promotion with all consequential benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner Gayadhar Panda in O.J.C. No. 2966 of 1995 is that he was at Sl. No. 1 of the seniority list while opp. party No. 2 was at sl. No. 9, but the opp. party No. 2, who was at sl. No. 9 in the seniority list has been made senior to him and placed at sl.No. 1 in the promotion from O.J.S. Class-II cadre to O.J.S. Class-I (Junior) by notification in Annexure-3 and has claimed that there was no justification for promoting the opp. party No. 2 in preference to the petitioner, which is illegal and liable to be struck down. Common question of law and fact being involved in both the writ applications, they were heard analogous and are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The opposite party No. 1, Registrar (Administration) has filed a return denying the claim and refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. However, it is admitted that the oppo¬site party No. 2, Sri R. K. Mohanty was junior to the petitioner and placed just below the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 in the Civil List of 1985 batch of O.J.S. Class-II Officers. It is specifically asserted that at the time the cases for promotion was taken up, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 was placed at serial No. 8 and petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2966 of 1995 at serial No. 1 of the Civil List whereas opposite party No. 2 was at serial No. 9 of the seniority list. It is specifically asserted that at the time the cases for promotion was taken up, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 was placed at serial No. 8 and petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2966 of 1995 at serial No. 1 of the Civil List whereas opposite party No. 2 was at serial No. 9 of the seniority list. According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the then Hon’ble Chief Justice came across a judgment dated 12.2.1992 delivered by Shri R. C. Mohanty, opposite party No. 2, in G. R. Case No. 187 of 1988, which having impressed him some other judgments delivered by Shri Mohanty was called for and the Hon’ble Chief Justice in a note, observed that since opposite party No. 2 is consistently writing good judgments, he needs to be encouraged and groomed up and for this purpose, may even be promoted out of turn. The Registry was directed to put up this note as and when promotion of officers in the cadre of Sri Mohanty is taken up for promotion by the Stand¬ing Committee. Accordingly, the case of opposite party No. 2 along with the other officers was put up before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 11.9.1993, wherein it was re¬solved that opposite party No. 2 would be the first person to be promoted when question of promotion of officers of 1985 batch would be taken up. The extract of the minutes of the Standing Committee has been annexed as Annexure-B. On the basis of such decision, the Standing Committee in their meeting held on 10.4.1994 promot¬ed opposite party No. 2 as the 1st person of his batch, superseding all the 8 officers of his batch who were senior to him.A copy of the minutes of the Standing Committee dated 10.4.1994 has also been annexed as Annexure-C. 5. In the present case, recruitment conditions of service and promotion of officers in Orissa Judicial Service are governed under the Orisa Judicial Service Rules, 1964 since repealed by Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which came into force with effect from 28.12.1994. The Judicial Service in terms of Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the “O.J.S. Rules, 1964”) consists of all posts in the judicial service of the State other than the post in the Orissa Superior Judicial Service constituted under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. The Judicial Service in terms of Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the “O.J.S. Rules, 1964”) consists of all posts in the judicial service of the State other than the post in the Orissa Superior Judicial Service constituted under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. The services comprises of (a) the Orissa Judicial Service (Class-I) consisting of Subordinate Judges and (b) the Orissa Judicial Service (Class-II) consists of Munsifs and Magis¬trate. The Government in Law Department by Notification dated 3rd March, 1990 upgraded the post of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magis¬trate (Class-II) to that of Class-I (Junior) and as such, the Orissa Judicial Service Class-I thereafter consisted of O.J.S. Class-I and O.J.S. Class-I (Junior) (S.D.J.M.), which comprises of the officers of the rank of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Re¬cruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service Class-I is to be made by High Court by promotion from amongst the Officers in Orissa Judicial Service Class-II under Rule-4 thereof. The details of methods, and mode of promotion are not prescribed under the Rules. However, Rule 28 of the O.J.S. Rules, 1964 contemplates that the conditions of the service of the members of the services in regard to matters not governed by these rules shall be made as are or as may from time to time be admissible generally to other State Service Officers. In view of Rule 28 and in absence of any specific provision as to the mode and manner of consideration for promotion to O.J.S. Class-I (Junior), the Rules admissible gener¬ally to other State Service Officers may be applied. Correspond¬ing provision in this context of a comparable State Service, therefore, shall be the Orissa Administrative Service Class-I (Jr. Branch) (Recruitment and Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called as “O.A.S. Class-I Junior Branch Rules, 1977”). Thus, the rule generally applicable to the O.A.S. Class-I (Junior) as above would apply for the mode and manner of promo¬tion. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rule provides that recruitment to the services shall be made by the Government by promotion from amongst the members of the Orissa Administrative Service (Class-II) in accordance with these rules. The Rule contemplates consti¬tution of Selection Board and prescribed the condition of eligi¬bility for promotion. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rule provides that recruitment to the services shall be made by the Government by promotion from amongst the members of the Orissa Administrative Service (Class-II) in accordance with these rules. The Rule contemplates consti¬tution of Selection Board and prescribed the condition of eligi¬bility for promotion. In case of promotion of O.J.S. Class-II Officers to the rank of Class-II, the Standing Committee of the Court is the authority to consider promotion of such officers to Class-I. Rule 5 (6) of the O.A.S. Class-I (Jr. Branch) Rules provides that if in the process of selection, review or revision, it is proposed to supersede any member of the Orissa Administra¬tive Service, Class-II, the Selection Board shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession. 6. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the appointing and/or promoting authority have every discretion or right to supersede an officer by an officer of excellent merit since the promotion is normally based on suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority. In case of O.A.S. Officers, the promo¬tion to Class-I (Junior) as provided under Rule 5 (3) thereof is based on merit and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority. Proviso to Sub-rule (4), however, vests a discretion with the Selection Committee to place a junior officer, who in its opinion is of exceptional merit and suitability,assign him a place in the list, higher than that of officers senior to him. In that event of supersession, the Selection Board has to record reasons thereof. Even otherwise also in the process of selection, if an office is to supersede his senior or seniors, there must be sufficient and cogent reasons for the same. 7. The Minutes of the Standing Committee dated 11.9.1993 annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 5/1 and to the counter affidavit as Annexure-B does not disclose as to whether, the Standing Committee, while deciding that the opp. party No. 2 would be the fist person to be promoted, when the question of promotion of the Judicial Officers of 1985 batch would be taken up, had considered the case of other such officers in the zone of consideration for promotion and as to whether the judgments rendered by other such officers were also considered and the relative merit was assessed while deciding to promote opp. party No. 2 in supersession of other officers of his batch. party No. 2 in supersession of other officers of his batch. When the selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance, the related and comparative merit of all others are also to be taken into account to adjudge their respective merits. It also is not clear as to whether the Standing Committee itself considered the judgments, which impressed the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Stand¬ing Committee, while considering the note of Hon’ble the then Chief Justice and the judgment rendered by opp. party No. 2, it was of the opinion that the performance of opp. party No. 2 was very good or excellent, in all fairness, it was required of the Committee to consider also the judgments rendered by other such officers in the cadre, who were in the zone of consideration for promotion. On the basis of the note of Hon’ble the then Chief Justice and on consideration of the performance of opp. party No.2, alone, without looking into the judgments of similarly placed officers in the cadre, the merit in all respects remaining constant or equal, the officer cannot in law be given a march over his seniors. It appears from the extracts of the minutes of the Standing Committee held on 10.4.1994 that while considering promotion to the cadre of O.J.S. Class-I Junior (S.D.J.M.), the opp. party No.2 Sri Mohanty was placed at serial No. 3 as the first person of the 1985 batch, allowing him to march over his seniors in the gradation/seniority list of the officers of O.J.S. Class-II. Since there appears to have 10 vacancies and 2 were of the earlier batch, eight persons have been promoted to the O.J.S. Class-I Junior (S.D.J.M.) and the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995, Sri Baisampayan Kar obviously could not be accommodated since his junior opp. party No. 2 was allowed to supersede. The records indicate that the C.C.R. of all officers of Class-II cadre due for promotion were placed for consideration and more or less the other officers superseded, were of equal or of relative¬ly higher merit. The opp. party No. 2 whose seniority position was at serial No. 9 having been promoted from the 1985 batch, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 could not get accommodated. 8. Promotion is a condition of service and no officers should be deprived of promotion and superseded without justifia¬ble reasons. The opp. party No. 2 whose seniority position was at serial No. 9 having been promoted from the 1985 batch, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 could not get accommodated. 8. Promotion is a condition of service and no officers should be deprived of promotion and superseded without justifia¬ble reasons. Nothing has been spelt out in the counter affidavit as to whether, while considering the judgments of opp. party No. 2 and assessing and appreciating the merits of the officer, the comparative merit in rendering quality judgments by other Judi¬cial Officers were duly considered either by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice or by the Standing Committee, while deciding to promote opp. party No. 2 in superseding all his senior officers and in placing him at the first position in 1985 batch of O.J.S. Class-II. 9. The Apex Court, while considering the case of superses¬sion in respect of an Indian Police Service Officer in the con¬text of Sub-rule (5) of Rule-5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment and Promotion) Regulation, 1995, in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1915 held that the Selection Committee is required to record its reason for the proposed supersession. A simple statement that on an overall assessment of records of these officers are not such as to justi¬fy their appointment in the Indian Police Service could not be held to be a reason for a conclusion for supersession of offi¬cers. The reason that the opp. party No.2 had rendered some outstanding quality judgments without considering the judgments of other eligible officers and evaluating or appreciating the relative merits, the promotion of opp. party No. 2 out of turn by superseding eight of his senior officers cannot be sustained. Promotions are matters of moment and cannot be treated as a casual or a routine affair. On a perusal of the note of the Registry to the Standing Committee, it appears that more or less the offi¬cers who were senior to opp. party No. 2 are either equally placed or some of them better placed, in terms of general C.C.R. If the C.C.Rs. and other general records reflects no adverse entry, the basis on which the supersession appears to have been made is unsustainable in law. 10. party No. 2 are either equally placed or some of them better placed, in terms of general C.C.R. If the C.C.Rs. and other general records reflects no adverse entry, the basis on which the supersession appears to have been made is unsustainable in law. 10. In view of what has been discussed earlier, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the Standing Commit¬tee to promote opp. party No. 2 to the cadre of O.J.S. Class-I Junior (S.D.J.M.) out of turn as No. 1 of 1985 batch cannot be sustained and as such, it is quashed. Nothing has been placed on record as to what has happened in the meantime. Since promotion of opp. party No. 2 is quashed, the matter has to be considered afresh by the Standing Committee in respect of opp. party No. 2 and the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 for promotion to the cadre of O.J.S. Class-I Junior (S.D.J.M). 11. The case of Gayadhar Panda, petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2966 of 1995 stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995. But, however, Sri Panda having been promoted along with opp. party No. 2 he otherwise cannot have any grievance, since the promotion of opp.party No. 2 has already been quashed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Application allowed.