JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. In this Writ Appeal, the validity of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants, has been put to challenge. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset: Both the writ petitioners and the respondents 4 to 9 joined service in the Gauhati Municipal Corporation at the entry level posts of Lower Division Assistant/Typist. According to the appellants, on the basis of their respective dates of joining in the initial posts of Lower Division Assistant/Typist, the writ petitioners have a longer length of service and therefore are senior to the respondents 4 to 9. By an order dated 9.7.1985, both the appellants and the respondents were promoted to the next higher posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 670/- -1500/- P.M. The aforesaid promotion, on being approved by the Public Service Commission, by order dated 5.9.1991, the appellants as well as the respondents were confirmed in their respective promotional posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 670/- - 1500/- P.M. Thereafter, by two separate orders both dated 28.8.1997, while the appellants were promoted to the next higher posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 1635/- -3,950/- P.M. the respondents were promoted to even higher posts in the Corporation carrying a higher pay scale than the posts to which the appellants were promoted. Specifically while the respondent No. 4 was promoted to a post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1835/- - 4325/-P.M., the other respondents were promoted to posts carrying a pay scale of Rs. 1785 - 4,200. Contending that there are no Service Rules in force in the Corporation prescribing any distinct manner of promotion to the higher posts, and claiming to be seniors in service to the respondents, the aforesaid promotion order dated 28.8.1997 in so far as the respondents are concerned, had been put to challenge by the appellants in the writ petition, out of which the present writ appeal has arisen. The further promotion of the private respondents to even higher posts in the Corporation, which have been made during the pendency of the writ application, have also been sought to be collaterally challenged in the present writ appeal. 3. The further promotion of the private respondents to even higher posts in the Corporation, which have been made during the pendency of the writ application, have also been sought to be collaterally challenged in the present writ appeal. 3. The official respondents, i.e., the authorities of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation had filed their affidavit in the case, wherein it has been indicated that the General Body of the Corporation had authorised its Standing Finance Committee to consider the norms for promotion to the higher posts in the Corporation; the Standing Finance Committee had recommended that in so far as the posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 1785/- - 4200/- P.M. and above are concerned, promotion should be made on the basis of merit and suitability. The recommendations of the Standing Finance Committee were put up before the General Body, which Body in a meeting held on 13.8.1997, had approved the same by adding the criteria of seniority along with the merit and suitability as recommended by the Standing Finance Committee. Thereafter, by adopting the criteria suggested and having regard to the fact that the private respondents were all graduates whereas the appellants were not, it was decided that while the appellants should be promoted to the posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1635 - 3950 P.M., the respondents should be promoted to the higher posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1785 - 4,200 P.M. Accordingly, the two sets of promotion order, both dated 28.8.1997, covering the writ appellants and the respondents were issued. 4. The learned Single Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the cases of the parties as projected, came to the conclusion that the promotion of the private respondents having been made on the basis of their higher academic qualification, the said promotion cannot be said to have been so made by consideration and/or adoption of a criteria and standard, which could be termed as irrelevant. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge though it proper to dismiss the writ petition by upholding the promotion of the respondents. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the writ appellants as well as Mr. B.M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 9. 6. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the writ appellants as well as Mr. B.M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 9. 6. Mr. Choudhry, learned Sr. counsel for the writ appellants, in a short and precise argument, has assailed the legality of the promotion of the respondents made by order dated 28.8.1997 as well as the refusal of the learned Single Judge to interfere with the same by contending that admittedly the writ appellants are senior to the respondents in the entry level posts earlier. The qualification in so far as the entry level posts is concerned is Matriculation, a qualification that the appellants do possess. In such a situation, learned counsel contends, no extra premium can be given to the respondents by virtue of their higher qualification, i.e., graduation. That apart, learned counsel has contended that as stated in the affidavit of the Corporation, the promotions were required to be made by adopting the criteria of seniority, merit and suitability. The seniority of the appellants have been ignored and there is no indication that merit and suitability of the writ appellants were considered at the time when the impugned promotions were made. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel has submitted that the present would be a fit case for interference by this Court with a direction to the respondent authority to reconsider the case of the appellants for promotion with effect from such date/dates on which the appellants may be found to be entitled for promotion. 7. In reply, Mr. B.M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel has argued that it is the case of the Corporation that in so far as the merit is concerned, both the appellants and the respondents will be at par, in such a situation, if the authority had decided to promote the respondents to the posts carrying higher pay scale than the posts to which the appellants had been promoted by virtue of their higher educational qualification, there should be no occasion for this Court to cause any interference with such promotion of the respondents. In the present case, the competent authority/body in the Corporation had decided that the higher posts in the Corporation should be manned by persons having higher qualification and it is on that basis that the promotions of the respondents were made. 8. Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 12 while supporting the argument advanced on behalf of the Corporation, has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Technical Employees' Association of Railways and Anr. v. Ministry of Railways and Ors., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 412 to contend that higher academic qualification can be a reasonable and acceptable basis for conferring promotion to holders of such higher qualification in preference to persons, who do not posses such qualification. The impugned action, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the private respondents would not call for interference by this Court. 9. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties have received our due consideration. In view of the stand taken by the Corporation in the affidavit in the original proceeding, this Court must notice that promotion to the post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1785-4,200/- P.M. i.e., the posts to which the respondents 4 to 9 have been promoted, is to be made by application of the criteria of seniority, merit and suitability as resolved by the General Body of the Corporation in its deliberations held on 13.8.1997. The appellants might have joined service in the Corporation in the entry level posts earlier than the respondents. However, such earlier date of joining of the appellants would not, according to us, make the appellants senior to the respondents, in as much as, both the appellants and the respondents were subsequently promoted and confirmed in the next higher posts on the same date by orders dated 9.7.1985 and 5.9.1991 respectively. However, such earlier date of joining of the appellants would not, according to us, make the appellants senior to the respondents, in as much as, both the appellants and the respondents were subsequently promoted and confirmed in the next higher posts on the same date by orders dated 9.7.1985 and 5.9.1991 respectively. The promotion of the appellants and the respondents to the feeder posts from which further promotions have been made by the two orders dated 28.8.1997 being on the same date and the order of promotion as well as the order of confirmation not having mentioned that the arrangement of names of the appellants and the respondents in the said orders is in order of merit, we are of the considered view that for the purpose of promotion to the next higher posts in the Corporation, the appellants could not have been considered to be senior to the respondents merely by virtue of their earlier dates of joining in the initial post. In so far as the merit is concerned, it is the stand of the Corporation that both the appellants and the respondents will be at par, a position that has not been seriously disputed by the appellants. In such a situation, the suitability for the higher posts had been determined by taking into account the higher educational qualification possessed by the respondents 4 to 9, we fail to see how the said action can be faulted. The respondent authority having taken the view that the higher posts in the Corporation should be manned by persons having higher educational qualification and on that basis the respondents 4 to 9 having been promoted to the posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1785 - 4,200 P.M., we can find no fault with the promotions so made. Admittedly, the respondent authority was not oblivious of the cases of the appellants, inasmuch as, by a separate order passed on the same date, i.e., on 28.8.1997 the appellants were also promoted but to posts carrying a lower scale of pay of Rs. 1635 - 3950 P.M. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no good ground to cause any interference with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. 1635 - 3950 P.M. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no good ground to cause any interference with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed