JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 the concerned workmen in spite of services of notices served upon him. 2. The petitioner who is the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M/s Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. has challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad reference case No. 294/86 whereby answering the reference in favour of the workmen he has held that the concerned workman is entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Overman w.e.f. 1985 and further declared the concerned workmen passed in the test conducted by Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1984. 3. It appears that the appropriate Government in exercise of power under Section 10(1)(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication. "Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union that the management of the Chasnalla Colliery of M/s Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited should give promotion to Sri B.D. Singh, Overman as Senior Overman from the date on which he was superseded by the promotion of other workmen junior to him is justified." 4. The case of the workman Sri B.D. Singh is that he was appointed as permanent Overman in the year 1964 and despite his satisfactory performance he was not given promotion to the post of Senior Overman. On the contrary several other Overman junior to him were given promotion as Senior Overman. 5. The case of the management on the other hand is that promotion of the Overman to the post of Senior Overman is done only on the basis of merit and not on seniority. It is stated that the case of the concerned workman was considered by the DPC but he was not found fit for promotion as Senior Overman. 6. The Tribunal after considering the facts and the evidence recorded a finding that there was no basis for not promoting the concerned workman by the DPC. The Tribunal further scrutinized and reevaluated the marking given by the DPC in the interview and held that although the qualifying marks for being considered for promotion was 60 out of 100, the concerned workman obtained 58 and therefore he cannot be said to be disqualified for promotion to the post of Senior Overman. 7. The Tribunal further scrutinized and reevaluated the marking given by the DPC in the interview and held that although the qualifying marks for being considered for promotion was 60 out of 100, the concerned workman obtained 58 and therefore he cannot be said to be disqualified for promotion to the post of Senior Overman. 7. On the face of the award it is clear that the Tribunal has grossly exceeded its jurisdiction in passing award and answering the reference in favour of the workman. The Tribunal has accepted that merit was the sole criteria for giving promotion from the post of Overman to the post of Senior Overman. It is also not disputed that the case of the concerned workman along with other Overman was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the concerned workman did not obtain the requisite marks i.e. 60 out of 100 for being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Overman. In view of these admitted facts the Tribunal has recorded his finding on conjecture and surmises. The Tribunal has committed grave error of law in substituting, himself as the member of the DPC and re-evaluating the marks obtained by the concerned workman vis-a-vis the other candidates appeared in the interview. The Tribunal on assumption held that because of his long service as a Overman he ought to have been given some more marks by the DPC in order to give him promotion. It is well settled that an employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, he is only entitled to be considered for promotion. In the instant case the concerned workman was considered by the DPC and he was not found fit for promotion because of the less marks obtained by him and also because of his poor performance for which he was given warning so many times. The Tribunal has completely overlooked all these aspects of the matter and passed the impugned award on extraneous consideration. The impugned award therefore cannot be sustained in law. For the aforesaid reason this writ application is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. However there shall be no order as to costs.