JUDGMENT M. M. Kumar, CJ.-- 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent seeks annul­ment of judgment and order dated 24.05.2013 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court while dis­missing SWP No. 1170/2012 filed by the appellant. The writ petitioner-appellant has sought directions to respondents to promote him as Chief Enforcement Of­ficer w.e.f 31.10.2010 in the Jammu Municipal Corporation from the post of Enforcement Officer. The vacancy on the post of Chief Enforcement Officer was caused on 31.10.2010 when Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma superannuated. The writ petitioner-appellant, admittedly a senior most Enforcement Officer had represented to the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation-respon­dent No.2 to promote him to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer keeping in view his qualification, meritorious ser­vice record and seniority. On 10.11.2010, the Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation recommended his case for consideration of his pro­motion on the vacant post of Chief En­forcement Officer (Annexure-B). How­ever, the recommendations made by the Commissioner, JMC-respondent No.2 did not find favour with respondent No. 1. The writ petitioner appellant then filed representation for consideration of his case. However, on account of his ensuing superannuation he filed firstly SWP No.287/2012 along with CMA No.399/2012. The Writ Court while is­suing notice to the respondents issued directions on CMA No.399 to consider the case of the writ petitioner appel­lant in accordance with the rules and precedents. Respondents were required to take decision within the notice pe­riod. In terms of Section 67 of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, the respondents constituted Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated 27.04.2011. In its meeting a decision was taken and it was found that the claim of the appellant for promotion di­rectly to the post of Chief Enforcement Office (Chief Khilafwarzi Officer) was not tenable on account of absence of gazetted recruitment rules and he had never discharged duties against the aforesaid post as an incharge incum­bent. Order dated 25.04.2012 was placed on the record of SWP No.287/2012 and the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by reserving the right of the appellant to re-agitate the matter in view of fresh cause given by or­der dated 25.04.2012. As a consequence SWP No. 1170/2012 relatable to the in­stant appeal was filed challenging or­der dated 25.04.2012. 2. Order dated 25.04.2012 was placed on the record of SWP No.287/2012 and the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by reserving the right of the appellant to re-agitate the matter in view of fresh cause given by or­der dated 25.04.2012. As a consequence SWP No. 1170/2012 relatable to the in­stant appeal was filed challenging or­der dated 25.04.2012. 2. The learned Single Judge has dis­missed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant by accepting the stand of the respondents asserting that respondent No.2 had forwarded his case to the Government for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Enforce­ment Officer vide letter dated 10.11.2010. Thereafter some docu­ments were sought to process the case viz. seniority list of Enforcement Offic­ers, vacancy position and work and con­duct certificate of the writ petitioner-appellant, which were sent to the Hous­ing and Urban Development Depart­ment on 18.12.2010. The Commis­sioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation sent his reply to the representation made by the appellant to the Govern­ment. The learned Single Judge also accepted that prior to coming into force the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, the promotions and appointments were being made in accordance with Sections 51 and 52 of the J&K Municipal Act, 2008 (Svt.).After enforcement of J&K Munici­pal Corporation Act, 2000, (for brevity, the Act of 2000) Section 67 of the Act deals with the posts in the Corporation. In view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act of 2000 selection committee for direct recruitment and Departmen­tal Promotion Committee in the Mu­nicipal Corporation was constituted on 27.04.2011. The Departmental Promo­tion Committee met and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant to promotion against the vacant post of Chief Enforcement Office (Chief Khilafwarzi Officer) on account of ab­sence of gazetted recruitment rules and for the reason that the writ petitioner-appellant was not holding the post of Chief Enforcement Officer as he was never given charge of that post before his superannuation. He was claiming consideration for promotion after his superannuation. Accordingly, his claim was rejected by passing order dated 25.04.2012. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the judgement- "In terms of the aforesaid Rules, the respondents constituted Departmen­tal Promotion Committee vide order dated 27.04.2011, which convened its meeting in which a decision was taken. Accordingly, his claim was rejected by passing order dated 25.04.2012. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the judgement- "In terms of the aforesaid Rules, the respondents constituted Departmen­tal Promotion Committee vide order dated 27.04.2011, which convened its meeting in which a decision was taken. It was found that claim of the petitioner was not tenable to seek pro­motion directly against the post of Chief Khilafwarzi Officer in absence of Gazetted Recruitment Rules, and as per precedence in vogue, he was not holding the said post nor was he ever placed as in-charge or worked against the post of Chief Enforcement Officer. Respondents have considered the same of the petitioner was per law applicable and found him ineligible for promotion as Chief Enforcement Officer. Thus, no exception can be found with the decision of the Depart­mental Promotion Committee, which is perfectly legal and in accordance with law." 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. 4. It is true that the writ petitioner-appellant had a right to be considered for promotion as it is one of the mat­ters relating to employment or appoint­ment within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The right to be considered for promotion does not necessarily mean that he must get pro­moted. In that regard reliance may be placed on various observations made in the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 and Sarbjit Singh v. Ex-Major B.D.Gupta, (2000) 7 SCC 67 . The appellant cannot claim promotion merely on the basis that he has been senior most in the cadre par­ticularly in the absence of any rule. It is trite to observe that an obligation is cast on the authority concerned to con­sider all employees for promotion in accordance with the statutory rules or conditions contained in the contract of service or executive instructions is­sued by the authorities and norms, as the case may be, and any such consid­eration must be fair and reasonable satisfying test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There would be no violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) if writ petitioner-appellant is not promoted merely because he was senior most particularly after his superannuation. The view of the learned Single Judge upholding the order dated 25.04.2012 may not be wholly correct. There would be no violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) if writ petitioner-appellant is not promoted merely because he was senior most particularly after his superannuation. The view of the learned Single Judge upholding the order dated 25.04.2012 may not be wholly correct. It is not pos­sible to accept that in order to earn pro­motion one must be holding the higher post of Chief Enforcement Officer (Chief Khilafwarzi Officer) on incharge basis yet the same would be relevant when we examine the issue in the light of the fact that the writ petitioner-appel­lant had superannuated. In that con­text it would be pertinent to observe that an officer, who have attained su­perannuation and his claim for promotion has been considered afterward then the factum of his holding the higher post of Chief Enforcement Of­ficer on incharge/adhoc basis would attain significance in view of the judg­ment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another, 1983 AIR 1060. Therefore, we find that the appeal does not merit admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed.