1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Registrar Cooperative Society J&K at Jammu dated 4.7.2008, by virtue of which Registrar has disposed of revision filed by Sagar Singh Salathia and others, against petitioners herein and respondents no. 3 and 4 and others. Court below while disposing of the matter, has directed the General manager of Super Bazar Jammu for drawing out the merit/Proforma basis promotion policy, so that good workers of Super Bazar can be encouraged. It has also been directed that, petitioners therein, be also considered for promotion along with other employees. 2. Petitioners has stated in revision petition that respondent no. 4 ( Bodh Raj) was promoted vide order no 852-56 dated 22.6.91 and 917-20 dated 20.6.91 and was given a pay scale of Rs. 1600-75-2200-100-2900 over the heads of petitioners, after ignoring the length of service and seniority of petitioners. That a petition was preferred on 29.6.96 before Jt. Registrar Special against said promotion and on 11.11.96 Jt. Registrar passed the order and directed that petitioners be also be promoted to same grade from the date when Bodh Raj Sharma was promoted. That Bodh Raj aggrieved of the said order, preferred an appeal before Registrar Jammu Co- operative society jammu, who dismissed the same on 2.9.1997. 3. That petitioners were making representations since than with competent authority and accordingly member secretary Board of Directors/General manager recommended the case of petitioners being genuine. That Chairman jammu Cooperative whole Sale Super Bazar jammu, accorded sanction with this respect on 9.10.99. That on the basis of this Order petitioners drawn their salary in revised pay scale. 4. That respondent no. 1 without hearing the petitioners and inviting any objections, reviewed its own order passed on 9.10.99 and stayed the same vide its order dated1.11.99. 5. This order was assailed before Registrar Cooperative Society and on 8.11.99, order of respondent no. 1 was stayed, That some junior employees, who were neither parties to the petitions filed a revision petition against the order dated 8.11.99 before this Tribunal on 16.2.2006. This Tribunal on 16.2.2006 held that order under revision was an interim order and so parties can approach Registrar. That Registrar Cooperative Society on receipt of file on 10.2.2007, passed order on 10.2.2007, that General manager Super Bazaar shall produce seniority list of different categories of employees of organization. This Tribunal on 16.2.2006 held that order under revision was an interim order and so parties can approach Registrar. That Registrar Cooperative Society on receipt of file on 10.2.2007, passed order on 10.2.2007, that General manager Super Bazaar shall produce seniority list of different categories of employees of organization. That one Sagar Singh whose presence was recorded in the Order was not correct and does not borne out from any record. That on 4.8.2007 Registrar passed the impugned order. This order is against facts and a law. That order impugned is not speaking order and it has been passed on the back of the petitioners. That order has been passed without jurisdiction. 6. From the perusal of file, it reveals that revision petition is neither accompanied with any certified copy of impugned nor there is any application for dispensation of certified copy.Along with petition only Photostat copy of order impugned, has been attached. 7. Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules reads as under:- Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules Every memorandum of petition shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against. 8. A plain reading of Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules, it is evident that, every petition should be accompanied with one certified copy of order impugned, which has not been done in the present case. 9. As this court is correctional court and matter is pending since long, so I have heard appearing counsels. 10. Heard both the counsels and gone through the records. I have also gone through relevant law on subject. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, I have come to conclusion that matter between parties is pertaining to promotion. SRO 233 OF 1988 deals with service conditions of employees of cooperative society department. 12. Rule 4 of SRO 233 deals with appointment to service. It reads as under:- Rule- 4: Appointment to the service --(1) Appointment to the service shall be made by:- a. Direct Recruitment b. Transfer c. Promotion d. Deputation from the Government Departments other institution/employers. 13. Bare perusal of this rule it is evident that appointment to service for a posts in different cadre are to be made by four ways. Clause "c" deals with appointment to the post by way of promotion. 13. Bare perusal of this rule it is evident that appointment to service for a posts in different cadre are to be made by four ways. Clause "c" deals with appointment to the post by way of promotion. Further seniority has to be reckoned as per rule 10 of SRO 233, from the date of first appointment in such class category or grade. 14. Promotions are to made on basis of merit cum seniority and in case junior is to promoted, then due consideration has to be given to the claim of senior. All departments have to make firstly a tentative seniority list and after inviting objections from all concern, a final list is to be prepared. In this way all promotions are to be made according to seniority list. 15. So, in present case direction of court below to General Manager of super Bazar to draw out the merit /performance basis promotion policy and petitioners therein be also considered is well consonance with law. Further order of consideration does mean that, promotion has been made. It does not decide any legal right of parties to litigation. No final order has been passed by court below. 16. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed as order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Record be sent back along with this order. File of this court shall be consigned to records after due compilation.