ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, prays for quashing the seniority-list prepared for 877 Officers of the state Administrative Service by the respondents appearing in the newspaper report dated 26th November, 2003 as the same is defective, unjust and improper. Further prayer has been made for quashing the recommendation of 41 officers of the State Administrative Service whose names have been proposed by the State Government for promotion to the rank of Indian Administrative Service and further for a direction upon the respondents to consider the due promotion of the petitioner in State Administrative Service Super Time Grade-I in the rank of Additional District Magistrate. 2. The petitioners case is that she was appointed in the State Administrative Service in 1978 and was confirmed in 1982. In 1983, she was promoted to Junior Selection Grade and in 1989 she was promoted to Senior Selection Grade. By virtue of promotion in 1989, the petitioner said to have come (sic) has been working under the same rank in the State of Bihar. In the meantime, she represented to the Government in 2001 for her promotion in Super Time Grade-I with retrospective effect i.e. from 1994 as she obtained the requisite qualifications and experience for the said category. It is stated that after bifurcation of cadre, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and she has been working in the same category i.e. the rank of additional Collector. The service record of the petitioner is excellent and quite satisfactory. On requisition of the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, requisite information with regard to petitioner was submitted for determination of the seniority of the scheduled tribe in the light of 85th Constitutional Amendment. Surprisingly, in the newspaper report dated 26th November, 2003 published in the Dainik Jagran, juniors to the petitioners were put above her in the seniority- list prepared by the respondents. The petitioner also surprised to see the newspaper wherein 41 officers junior to her have been proposed for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that the recommendation of the names of junior officers is wholly arbitrary, illegal and improper. 3. The petitioner also surprised to see the newspaper wherein 41 officers junior to her have been proposed for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that the recommendation of the names of junior officers is wholly arbitrary, illegal and improper. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents - State of Jharkhand, it is stated that the consideration zone list for appointment in I.A.S. has been prepared according to I.A.S. (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955. It is stated that 14 vacancies were confirmed by the Government of India till 2003 and according to Regulation, 41 eligible candidates according to cadre seniority list of Jharkhand Administrative Service have been listed in the zone of consideration. The last man included in the consideration zone holds the 128th place in the seniority list whereas the petitioners name in the said seniority list is at serial No. 207 and as such, she is not eligible for inclusion in the consideration zone. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, it is stated that the joining of the respondent in Bihar Administrative service is 29.11.1975. In the gradation list of Bihar Administrative Service, officers as on 15.3.1999 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, the name of respondent No. 4 is at serial No. 118, whereas the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 699 and her date of joining is 19.8.1978. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 is senior to the petitioner. The seniority of the petitioner has also been confirmed by the seniority list prepared by the Department of Personnel & Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. The said list has been published vide Memo dated 16.8.2003. In the said list, name of respondent No. 4 is at serial No. 30, whereas the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 207. 5. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 6. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the list of the officers for putting in the consideration zone for appointment in I.A.S. is prepared according to the provisions of I.A.S. (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955. 5. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 6. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the list of the officers for putting in the consideration zone for appointment in I.A.S. is prepared according to the provisions of I.A.S. (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955. It has also not been disputed that the criteria for inclusion in the list of consideration zone, inter alia, is that the officer must be holding a substantive post in the State service and on completion of eight years in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent post in the State Government. The list is to be prepared according to seniority in the service and subject to other conditions like satisfactory performance in the service career. It appears that after inviting objection, a seniority list was finally published vide Memo No. 6385 dated 24.11.2003. In para.9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by the respondents-State that the last man included in the consideration zone holds 128th place in the seniority list, whereas the petitioners name in the seniority list is at serial No. 207 and as such, she is not eligible for inclusion in the consideration zone. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. In my view, therefore, this Court cannot usurp the role of the Selection Committee and to find out who are the persons entitled to be listed in the consideration zone. It is subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee to include the names of those persons who, besides seniority, are otherwise fit for promotion/appointment in the I.A.S. cadre. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed.