GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Ms. S. Sethna Baria, Advocate instructing Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv reddy, Advocate instructing mr. K. Subrahmanya Reddy, learned Senior counsel, for the 1st respondent. None appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by having been superseded to the post of Programme officer in the 1-st respondent establishment and seeks invalidation of the order dated 14-02-2000 whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 9, her juniors, were promoted as programme Officers ignoring her case for such promotion. That the 1 st respondent is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India is not in disputation; that respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are juniors to the petitioner in the category of Assistant programme Officers or equivalent categories is also not in dispute; that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are qualified for consideration for promotion to the post of programme Officers is also not in dispute. While the petitioner claims to have been superseded contrary to the legal architecture governing promotions to the post of programme Officer, the 1st respondent seeks to justify the petitioner s supersession on the ground that merit has primacy in the matter of promotion to the category of programme Officer and the petitioner was not found comparatively meritorious to the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 by the Departmental promotions Committee (for short dpc ). ( 3 ) IN paragraph Nos. 5 to 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has set out facts in support of her claim to an outstanding record of service and would invite this court to consider whether in view of her asserted record of service, she sought to have been considered preferentially vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for promotion to the post of Programme officer. As this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the selection process, this invitation of the petitioner ought to be and is accordingly declined. 2 to 9 for promotion to the post of Programme officer. As this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the selection process, this invitation of the petitioner ought to be and is accordingly declined. ( 4 ) IN view of the issues involved in this list, the question that falls for consideration is as to what are the applicable legal principles having regard to the regulations that govern promotions to the post of Programmed officer in the 1st respondent establishment? ( 5 ) IT is the synoptic case of the parties that the Indian Council for Cultural Relations recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and promotion Rules (for short the ICCR Rules ) incorporate the legal environment in conformity with which promotions are to be made for the post of Programme Officer from the post of Assistant Programme Officer and equivalent posts. The post of a programme Officer is enumerated in grade-ll Category (c) vide the First Schedule to the ICCR Rules. The post of Assistant programme Officer is in Category (a) of grade-Ill of the First Schedule. Rule 4 in chapter-Ill of the ICCR Rules set out the procedure for Recruitment to various posts. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 4 incorporates the procedure for Recruitment to Grade-ll (c) cadre posts, which is the area with which we are concerned in this lis. Rule 4 (iii) of the iccr Rules enjoins the Recruitment to grade-ll (c) Cadre posts shall be filled on selection basis (seniority-cum-merit) by promotion of the permanent Officer of grade-Ill (a) of the Cadre on the ratio of 50:50 (promotion/direct recruitment) basis. This Rule also enjoins that no person shall be eligible for promotion to Grade-ll (c) post unless he rendered 5/8 years (five years for graduate and eight years for undergraduate) of approved service in a respective Grade subject to availability of vacancy. This Rule also enjoins that no person shall be eligible for promotion to Grade-ll (c) post unless he rendered 5/8 years (five years for graduate and eight years for undergraduate) of approved service in a respective Grade subject to availability of vacancy. ( 6 ) ANNEXURE-L to the ICCR Rules sets out a table incorporating the cadre strength for each of the posts in the service, the classification of the posts, scale of pay, whether the post is a selection post or a non- selection post, prescription of age limit for direct recruits, whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits apply in case of promotions, the period of probation, if any and the method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment, by promotion, transfer on deputation or transfer and the percentage of vacancies to be filled by each of the methods. Insofar as the post of Programme Officer is concerned, annexure-l sets out the various aspects enumerated above in respect of the post of programme Officer, in Serial No. 3 of the Annexure. The position reflected in rule 4 (iii) of the ICCR Rules, adverted to supra, is reiterated in Annexure-l reiterating that the post of Programme Officer is a selection post . ( 7 ) DURING the early periods of organized employment the expression selection post was self-dispositive. Over the years and responding to the increasing complexities of employment, in particular public employment, the large number of posts that occur in public services, the intense competition for career advancement and the complex needs of a dynamic society, further refinements of the expression selection became necessitus. As a result, the concept of selection was further refined and parameters such as selection simplicitor, selection by the method of seniority-cum- merit selection meaning merit-cum-seniority and other variations such as selection-cum- seniority and selection by merit assumed currency in administrative practice. These refinements in administering the selection process of recruitment invite debate and dispute. Interpretation and authoritative explication of the meaning of these various methods of selection became necessary. We have a large body of precedents to cater to this terminological richness in the variety of selection processes adopted in services both of public authorities and private establishments. These refinements in administering the selection process of recruitment invite debate and dispute. Interpretation and authoritative explication of the meaning of these various methods of selection became necessary. We have a large body of precedents to cater to this terminological richness in the variety of selection processes adopted in services both of public authorities and private establishments. ( 8 ) THE 1st respondent establishment as already noticed, has ordained that recruitment to the post of Programme Officer from the category of Assistant Programme officer is on selection basis as the genus and seniority cum merit - as the species. ( 9 ) BEFORE embarking on an analysis as to the validity of the selection process adopted by the 1 st respondent in the case on hand, on which adversarial positions have been taken by the petitioner and the 1st respondent, it is necessary to consider the authoritative precedents which have defined the expression seniority-cum-merit in the selection process of public authorities. ( 10 ) SINCE Sant Ram Sharma v. State of rajasthar the expression seniority-cum- merit has fallen for consideration and explication of meaning in various decisions of the Supreme Court. There were subsequent decisions such as State of mysore v. Syed Mahmood and State of mysore v. C. R. Seshadrp. In all India services, the concept of selection fell for consideration in a few cases. The principal of which is Union of India v. Mohan Lalcapooi and R. S. Dass v. Union of India. The concept of seniority-cum-merit again fell for consideration by the Supreme Court in b. V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babif. ( 11 ) IN Sivaiah s case6, the meaning of the expression seniority-cum-merit directly fell for consideration by the Supreme Court. This was the criterion prescribed for promotion to the post of Area Manager/ Senior Manager in the Regional Rural Banks (for short RRB) under the applicable Rules of 1988. Initially, appointment to the post of Area Manager / senior Manager in the RRB was governed by circulars issued by the Central government and the National Bank of which they were administrative arrangements. Thereafter, the 1988 Rules were framed. The question whether in the context of the rules prescribing that appointments to the post of Area/senior Managers be governed by the principle seniority-cum-merit , the aspect of merit has primacy or seniority and what the. Thereafter, the 1988 Rules were framed. The question whether in the context of the rules prescribing that appointments to the post of Area/senior Managers be governed by the principle seniority-cum-merit , the aspect of merit has primacy or seniority and what the. expression seniority-cum- merit signifies, came to be explained by the supreme Court. After an analysis of the extant precedents on the aspect, the supreme Court in Sivaiaha s case (6 supra) held (vide paragraph No. 18 of the AIR report) as under:"18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of seniority-cum-merit1 in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks oh the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. " ( 12 ) AFTER enunciating the meaning of the expression seniority-cum-merit in paragraph-18 supra, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine whether the criterion enunciated by it had been followed by the banks in making the promotions, which were challenged before it. This is what the court recorded on an analysis of the procedure followed by one of the RRBs in making the promotions (vide paragraph-26 of the AIR report), which reads as follows:"26. Having heard the learned counsel for the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank as well as five Branch Managers who had been promoted as Area/senior managers in the proceeding on 1/12/1989, we find that no case is made out for interference with the said view of the High Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank as well as five Branch Managers who had been promoted as Area/senior managers in the proceeding on 1/12/1989, we find that no case is made out for interference with the said view of the High Court. The promotion process laid down by the rayalaseema Gramina Bank in its circular dated 27/09/1989, on the basis of which the selection for promotion had been made on 1/12/1989 sets apart 34 marks for seniority, 10 marks for qualifications, 20 marks for interview and 56 marks for performance which shows that out of a total number of 120 marks the maximum number of marks that could be awarded to seniority is 34 and that 0. 75 mark was to be given for each completed month of service over and above minimum qualifying service in other words, if two persons are appointed on the same day, the same number of marks had to be awarded for seniority. Moreover, out of a total number of 120 marks more than 50% marks where set apart for interview and performance. The High Court has found that only those officers who had secured the highest number of marks were ultimately promoted. It is not a case where minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for assessment of performance and merit and those who secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks are selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. In the circumstances, it must be held that the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the mode of selection that was in fact employed was contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit laid down in the rules. Civil Appeal nos. 3799-3803 of 1996 filed by rayalaseema Gramina Bank as well as civil Appeal Nos. 3811-2812 of 1996 filed by the promoted officers are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. " (Emphasis added ). Similar conclusions were arrived at by the supreme Court in respect of Pinakini grameena Bank, Bastar Kshetriya Gramin bank, and Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank. ( 13 ) PROMOTIONS in Chindwara Seoni kshetriya Gramin Bank were also challenged and the challenge considered by the Supreme Court in Shivaiah s case (6 supra ). " (Emphasis added ). Similar conclusions were arrived at by the supreme Court in respect of Pinakini grameena Bank, Bastar Kshetriya Gramin bank, and Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank. ( 13 ) PROMOTIONS in Chindwara Seoni kshetriya Gramin Bank were also challenged and the challenge considered by the Supreme Court in Shivaiah s case (6 supra ). On a consideration of the relevant documents, the Supreme Court found that 50% marks out of total 100 marks were prescribed for minimum qualifying marks for interview and only those who had obtained the qualifying /narks in the interview were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority . The Supreme Court recorded that in the circumstance a minimum standard was said to have been prescribed for assessing the merit of the candidates and those who had fulfilled the minimum standard were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority . The criterion of seniority- cum-merit was, therefore, not violated, ruled the Supreme Court. In the case of other rrbs, the Court found that primacy was awarded to merit and seniority was relegated to a subservient position all through the selection process. ( 14 ) WHAT is, however, required to be noticed is that apropos the law declared in shivaiah s case (6 supra), the expression seniority-cum-merit postulates that given a minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, a senior even though a less meritorious vis-a-vis persons who had secured the minimum necessary merit benchmark shall have priority and is not required to complete with others on the scale of merit alone. The achievement of minimum benchmark could legitimately be assessed by the employer either by assigning marks on the basis of an appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and/or by any other rational method. ( 15 ) IN K. Samantaray v. National insurance Co. Ltd. , (S. C.), the expression seniority-cum-merit in the context of a promotion Rule again fell for consideration by the Supreme Court, though in a slightly different administrative and factual context. The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in shivaiah s case (6 supra) was also considered along with other decisions such as Sant Ram Sharma s case (1 supra) and state of Mysore s case (3 supra ). The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in shivaiah s case (6 supra) was also considered along with other decisions such as Sant Ram Sharma s case (1 supra) and state of Mysore s case (3 supra ). The appellant before the Supreme Court, an administrative officer of the National insurance Company Limited, was superseded for promotion to the post of general Manager by his juniors in the feeder category. The Supreme Court considered the promotion policy of the Insurance company dated 14-02-1990 which elaborately defined the facially nebulous expression seniority-cum-merit . The promotion policy incorporated an elaborate regime of assessment while considering promotions to various categories of posts; the discretion of the assessing authority was also structured and conditioned by dividing the assessment parameters into categories such as seniority, insurance qualification, c. R. form, traits in C. R. , performance, growth potential and interview. Having regard to the fact that in the legal environment of the National Insurance company s promotion policy the expression seniority-cum-merit was conditioned by an explicit instrument of instructions in the policy instrument itself, which explicated the meaning of the expression seniority-cum- merit by an elaborate process of assessment of the criterion, the Supreme court in paragraph-10 characterized the national Insurance Company s promotion policy as a hybrid mode of promotion , somewhat akin to the mode of promotion considered in an earlier case by the supreme Court viz. , Syndicate Bank scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees Association (Regd.) through its general Secretary, K. S. Badlia and others v. Union of India and others. This mode was distinct from the two principal spices of the selection genus viz. , seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority modes, ruled the supreme Court. In this hybrid mode of promotion, held the Supreme Court, seniority is duly respected and merit appropriately recognized. After having concluded that National Insurance company s promotional policy was more appropriately akin to the hybrid mode of promotion, the Supreme Court held that it is always open to the employer to specify the area and parameters of weightage to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately. After having concluded that National Insurance company s promotional policy was more appropriately akin to the hybrid mode of promotion, the Supreme Court held that it is always open to the employer to specify the area and parameters of weightage to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately. In view of the fact that there was internal evidence available and the expression seniority-cum-merit in the insurance Company promotion policy, came appended with it an algorithm of meaning, the Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Shivaiah s case, (6 supra) on the insular facts and the promotion policy of the insurance Company. The Supreme Court also noticed that there were no statutory rules operating and that the entire area of promotion was governed by the promotion policy which required to be read as a whole. This was not a case where the area is governed partly by statutory rules and partly by administrative instructions. The Supreme court clearly recorded (vide paragraph -12 of the SLR Report) reading of the whole policy reveals that stress was not on seniority alone and weightage was sought to be imposed on merit and other relevant aspects also . ( 16 ) SRI Subrahmanya Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has urged that there are extant administrative instructions, which govern the procedure followed by the DPC constituted by the 1st respondent establishment for effecting promotions to the category of programme Officers. A portion of these administrative instructions has been filed as annexure-R/ll, appended to the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent. These instructions cover situations where promotions are made following the method of selection-cum-seniority and selection by merit apart from the non-selection method including the seniority-cum-fitness method. These instructions require the determination of a benchmark which for the category of posts we are concerned with i. e. , programme Officers is stated to be good . Among the candidates who secure the good benchmark the DPC is required to further rank them as outstanding , very good , good , average and unfit . In the preparation of the select list, officers graded as outstanding should be included in the first instance in the select list followed by very good and thereafter good , in the order of inter se seniority upto the number of vacancies (vide paragraph No. 7 of the instrument of instructions ). In the preparation of the select list, officers graded as outstanding should be included in the first instance in the select list followed by very good and thereafter good , in the order of inter se seniority upto the number of vacancies (vide paragraph No. 7 of the instrument of instructions ). As this methodology of selection has admittedly been followed by the respondents, it is apparent that candidates falling within the zone of consideration and eligible for consideration for promotion as Programme officer, would not merely have to achieve the benchmark good , but would be further classified thereafter as outstanding , very good , good , average and unfit . Among the officers so further classified, they would be graded in the select list in accordance with their inter se seniority in such refined categorization after crossing the benchmark. ( 17 ) A critical analysis of the procedure followed by the 1 st Respondent leads to the irresistible conclusion that it is selection pure and simple on a comparative assessment of merit and seniority relegated to the remotest consideration in the promotion assessment. The procedure, therefore, clearly negates the statutory prescription that promotion to the post of Programme Officer be by selection ( seniority-cum-merit ). The mandate of the statutory prescription vide paragraph 4 (iii) of the ICCR Rules is non- negotiable and is obligated on the respondent. The instrument of instructions for structuring the discretion of the DPC (Annexure-R/ll) is an administrative instrument that should be in conformity to the rules. It can neither supplant nor over reach or supersede Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR Rules. It can only operate in the intersticies, if any, of Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR Rules. Administrative instructions that subvert the purposes of Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR Rules, including the instructions in paragraph No. 7 are pro-tanto unenforceable. The DPC is found by Rule-4 (3) of the ICCR Rules and cannot act on the basis of any administrative instructions that subvert the purposes of the iccr Rules. ( 18 ) IT is the admitted position that the 1st respondent establishment has followed the benchmark, grading and preparation of the select list methodology as set out in paragraph No. 7 of the administrative instructions (annexure R/ll) a methodology that is inconsistent with the promotion rule viz. ( 18 ) IT is the admitted position that the 1st respondent establishment has followed the benchmark, grading and preparation of the select list methodology as set out in paragraph No. 7 of the administrative instructions (annexure R/ll) a methodology that is inconsistent with the promotion rule viz. , Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR Rules and contrary to selection by the method of "seniority-cum-merit the meaning of which has been laid down in paragraph No. 18 in shivaiah s case (6 supra ). If the DPC had placed all eligible candidates who had acquired the benchmark ranking good in the select list in inter se order of their seniority, the selection procedure followed would have been impeccable and in accordance with the law declared in shivaiah s case (6 supra) and Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR Rules. However, the 1st respondent establishment has followed a pure selection process through and through and the prescription of benchmark was but a device for refined or focused assessment by restricting the overall zone of consideration, so as to pursue further selection from among those candidates who had secured the benchmark. Even after securing the benchmark good there was further assessment of inter se merit for categorization as outstanding , Very good , good etc. ,. This further categorization of even those candidates who secured benchmark ranking good is clearly inconsistent with the principle of selection by the method of seniority-cum-merit as pronounced in Shivaiah s case (6 supra ). ( 19 ) THE petitioner is the senior most in the category of Assistant Programmer and her claim to seniority over respondent No. 2 to 9 is not disputed. This position is also admitted in paragraph-16 of the counter. Paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit filed by the Director General of the 1st respondent admits though equivocally that the procedure for promotion followed is a benchmark good , followed by further grading by DPC into outstanding , very good , good , average and unfit . ( 20 ) IT requires to be noticed that though the petitioner was not considered for promotion vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in the selection held late in the year 1999 where respondent Nos. 2 to 9 were promoted by the impugned order dated 14-02-2000, in the next selection, the petitioner was selected and promoted as programme Officer by proceedings dated 05-07-2001. 2 to 9 in the selection held late in the year 1999 where respondent Nos. 2 to 9 were promoted by the impugned order dated 14-02-2000, in the next selection, the petitioner was selected and promoted as programme Officer by proceedings dated 05-07-2001. The grievance in this writ petition is, therefore, limited to her supersession for promotion vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in the 1999 selection. ( 21 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and on the analysis above, the promotions of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 while rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion to the category of Programme officer on the basis of an assessment by dpc and by the procedure adverted to supra in this judgment is unsustainable and inconsistent with Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR rules. ( 22 ) IN the circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to forthwith review the promotions considered by the DPC in the years 1999-2000 which resulted in the impugned order dated 14-02-2000 insofar as the category of Programme Officer is concerned, the DPC, which shall be constituted to make review, shall consider the case of the petitioner and of respondent nos. 2 to 9 according to the principle and meaning of the expression seniority-cum- merit s as laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the Shivaiah s case (6 supra), eschewing the instructions in paragraph-7 of the administrative instructions set out in Annexure R/ll to the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent or any other administrative instructions which are inconsistent with Rule 4 (3) of the ICCR rules. On such review, if the petitioner is found deserving of promotion as Programme officer, she shall be entitled to all consequential and incidental benefits as to seniority over respondent Nos. 2 to 9, salary emoluments, arrears and all other benefits as though she has been promoted on par with respondent Nos. 2 to 9. ( 23 ) THE writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.