JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has assailed order dated 30.11.1991 (Annexure 4) whereby despite seniority in the cadre of LDC, he has been superseded by departmental promotion committee ("DPC") while recommending for promotion to the post of UDC. This order dated 30.11.1991 (Annexure 4) was subsequently modified vide order dated 1.12.1993, whereby respondents 2 to 4 were promoted w.e.f. 22.2.1991. 2. Facts in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of LDC on 25.7.1980. Requisite type test held on 12.12.1985 was qualified by him, whereafter on recommendations of Selection Committee, his services as LDC were regularised vide order dated 22.10.1986 (Annexure 1). Final seniority list (Annexure 2) of LDCs was published on 15.7.1988 wherein his name finds place at S. No. 5, while respondents 2 to 4, who are junior to him as per dates of their regular appointment, as is shown in seniority list (Annexure-2), stand at S. No. 8, 11 & 12, respectively. 3. Service conditions of employees of respondent Institute are governed by National Institute of Ayurveda Service Rules, 1982 ("1982 Rules"). Posts of LDC & UDC are categorized in Group C and as per part VII of 1982 Rules, Rule 28 which deals with "Criteria", for promotion, which provides that posts categorised in Group C are to be filled on the basis of seniority cum merit. 4. Shri N.K. Maloo, Counsel for petitioner submitted that once promotions are to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit and when there is no adversity in service record of the petitioner, he was entitled to be promoted in view of his placement in seniority list (Annexure 2); and denial in such circumstances is in disregard of provisions contained in Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India, and in support of his contention, Shri Maloo relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu, 1998(6) SCC 720 . 5. Shri Maloo further urged that while making promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit, minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration has to be considered and the senior even though less meritorious in performance shall have priority and comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. According to Shri Maloo, procedure for seniority-cum-merit has not been considered by respondents while making impugned promotions in Group C by DPC in its meeting held on 18.2.1991. 6. According to Shri Maloo, procedure for seniority-cum-merit has not been considered by respondents while making impugned promotions in Group C by DPC in its meeting held on 18.2.1991. 6. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. Per contra, Shri M.D. Agarwal assisted by Shri Anurag Agarwal, Counsel for respondent Institute submitted that seniority of petitioner is not disputed but his candidature was also considered by DPC convened on 18.2.1991 but the DPC found him unsuitable for promotion; and that petitioner only has a right of consideration and once his suitability has been adjudged by duly constituted Committee, and when he has not alleged any mala fide vice members of the DPC, recommendations in such circumstances, cannot be interfered with by this Court. 7. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. 8. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 17.1.2005, Counsel for respondent institute was directed to disclose as for what reasons, petitioner was not found suitable for promotion against vacancy of 1991, when his juniors were promoted, and so also to disclose the order by which he has been promoted. In compliance of this Court's order dated 17.1.2005, respondent Institute has filed additional affidavit pointing out that there were nine posts of UDC available with respondent Institute, when the DPC met on 18.2.1991 and against nine posts, the DPC found only five persons suitable for promotion to the post of UDC and against four remaining vacancies of 1991, the DPC met subsequently in 1993 and recommended the petitioner for promotion to the post of UDC, and on its recommendations, he has also been promoted vide order dated 15.4.1993; but despite orders of this Court, respondent Institute failed to disclose as to what is the justification for which the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion when his juniors were promoted on the recommendations of the DPC which met on 18.2.1991. 9. Photostat copy of Minutes of the UPC which met on 18.2.1991 when juniors of petitioner were recommended for promotion to the post of UDC, has been placed before me but that too does not disclose any basis, for which the DPC had held petitioner to be unsuitable in its meeting held on 18.2.1991. 10. 9. Photostat copy of Minutes of the UPC which met on 18.2.1991 when juniors of petitioner were recommended for promotion to the post of UDC, has been placed before me but that too does not disclose any basis, for which the DPC had held petitioner to be unsuitable in its meeting held on 18.2.1991. 10. As per Rules governing the service conditions of 1982, vacancies have to be determined under Rule 10 at the commencement of each year and have to be filled as per method provided for respective categories and Groups. Rule 28(2) of 1982 Rules lays down criteria for promotion oil the principle of seniority-cum-merit with respect to posts categorised for Group C & D. Post of UDC falls in Group C, according to which promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Rule 28 of 1982 Rules is as under: "28. Criteria: (1) the persons who are regularly appointed. on the posts enumerated in Col. 6 of the Schedule I, shall be considered for promotion (discipline-wise in Teaching Division). (2) Promotion shall be made strictly on the basis of merit-cum- seniority to the posts categorised as Group A : on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit cum seniority in the ratio of 50: 50 to the posts categorised as Group B and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit alone to the posts categorised as Group C & Group D." 11. In B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu (Supra) , the Apex Court has examined and laid down the principle where promotions are to be made on seniority-cum-merit, as follows: "18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of seniority-cum-merit 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 on 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. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on 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. Thus, in the matter of promotion criteria of seniority minimum necessary merit requisite for determination of performance and assessment of work has to be considered and the senior even though less meritorious in performance shall have priority and there is no necessity to comparative assessment of merit. 13. It is not the case of respondents that for assessing necessary merit, some criteria or minimum standard has been laid down prescribing mode of assessment of merit of employees who are eligible and within zone of consideration for promotion. Nothing has been pointed out with regard to adversity in service record of petitioner for relevant period for which the DPC found petitioner unsuitable particularly when against the vacancies of 1991, itself, the petitioner has been promoted as UDC vide order dated 15.4.1993. That apart, respondent Institute has not come out with any justification in holding petitioner unsuitable particularly when impugned promotions were made on the basis of seniority cum merit, and in the facts and circumstances when the matter has come up for judicial review before this Court, respondents are under obligation to disclose justification but the respondents have failed to do so. Thus viewed, in my opinion, decision of respondent Institute in holding petitioner unsuitable by DPC which met on 18.2.1991 is totally arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. In view of principle laid down by Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu (Supra) , I hold that the petitioner is entitled to promotion for the post of UDC from the date his juniors were promoted i.e., 22.2.1991. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Institute is directed to treat the petitioner to be promoted as UDC w.e.f. 22.2.1991 with all consequential benefits from the date his juniors (respondents 2 to 4) were promoted as UDC. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******