Judgment : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. By the present petition, the petitioner Dr. Kamble, has prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager with deemed date and consequent benefits thereupon, inter alia, to direct respondent no.1 to maintain Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe roster in the matter of promotion. 2. In support of the petition, Ms. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and there is no system with respondent no.1-Insurance Company for maintaining roster for SC & ST candidates and, therefore, there should be direction from this Court to do so particularly firstly because respondent no.1 is a Government Company. She then submitted that the petitioner is qualified having masters degree in Veterinary Science and Business Administration, so also in law. He was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer, Veterinary in the year 1985 and, thereafter, was promoted in 1989 to the post of Administrative Officer (Veterinary). The petitioner is admittedly the senior most when the occasion came to consider the case for promotion for the post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner was placed at serial number 281 in the seniority list issued in February-1995 in the list of Administrative Officers, while the employees who have superseded him are far away in the seniority list and to be precise, the last candidate, who was promoted was having seniority of 444 that too belonging to open category. Thus, 19 officers superseded the petitioner in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Ms Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner was the senior most, respondent no.1, being Government Company, was obliged to give weightage to him being the member of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was unjustifiably denied the promotion and 19 officers were permitted to supersede him out of victimisation. The officers who have superseded him are joined as respondents to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, as per their policy and the rules is by Seniority-cum-Merit and by virtue of seniority itself, the petitioner was liable to be promoted. She further submitted that there is no adverse report about the career of the petitioner and there was no reason to supersede him. She further submitted that there is no adverse report about the career of the petitioner and there was no reason to supersede him. In the alternative, counsel for the petitioner argued that looking to the need of criteria about promotion, the petitioner, being the senior most, was entitled to be promoted first rather than other officers, who superseded him at the relevant time. She then argued that the petitioner has been unjustifiably denied promotion and since he was retired from service, the petitioner must get justice by grant of consequential benefits. 3. Per contra, Mr. Sudame, learned counsel for respondent no.1-Insurance Company, vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner is completely wrong in saying that the post of Assistant Manager was by way of seniority-cum-merit. According to him, the promotion to the said post is not on the basis of seniority alone. On the contrary, pointing to the relevant rules, Mr. Sudame argued that it provides for grant of promotion not only on the basis of seniority but also on merit, job knowledge, past performance, suitability and growth potential. The suitability and growth potential can be assessed from the recommendations and remarks of the officers in the appraisals and interviews. Mr. Sudame, further submitted that the petitioner was not approved by the Promotion Committee and all the other respondents, who have superseded him, were found to be more suitable and competent considering the recommendations and remarks of the Officers in appraisals and interviews. He, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner was the senior most, that by itself was not enough for promoting him and that is why promotion of the respondents, rather than the petitioner, is fully justified. He relied on decision in K. Samantaray vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2004 (9) SCC 286. 4. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, in response to the query made by this Court, Mr. Sudame, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has produced an envelope showing the marks obtained by the respondents, who were promoted in place of the petitioner and that of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner must have received less marks than them in the interview and i.e. why the petitioner was not promoted. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. CONSIDERATION: 5. We have heard learned counsel for the rival partes at length. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. CONSIDERATION: 5. We have heard learned counsel for the rival partes at length. We have perused the entire record so also promotion policy and the relevant rules of promotion. We have perused the seniority list and, in fact, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was the senior most person in his cadre compared to the 19 officers who superseded him. Therefore, it can safely be said that the petitioner was the senior most person in his cadre. We would not like to enter into the controversy raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the promotion was not by seniority alone but also on merits. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post even on merits and, therefore, on both counts of merit and seniority, the petitioner satisfied the requirement. We are, therefore, need not decide whether the seniority alone was the criterion for promotion and would proceed to examine the case as per the defence of respondent no.1 Company that it is by seniority-cum-merit and suitability. 6. Looked from the above angle, we find that there is nothing on record brought by respondent no.1 to show that the petitioner was not suitable or that he did not have job knowledge or past performance or growth potential or the suitability. We also find that respondent no.1 has not placed anything on record to show that remarks of the officers in the appraisals in the interview were against the petitioner or that the petitioner was found unfit for the promotional post. Not a single remark of the superior or adverse report/remark has been placed before this Court to show that as compared to the others, who superseded him, he was not fit to be promoted. Respondent no.1 has, thus, cleverly suppressed from the Court the entire information, if it were to project its defence about non suitability of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 then relied on item 7 of Promotion and Transfer for Policy for Officers and contended that there are 100 marks allotted for considering the promotion to the post of assistant Manager. For Seniority 42 marks are allotted and since admittedly the petitioner is senior most, he was entitled to 42 marks. Next item is insurance qualification which has 8 marks. For Seniority 42 marks are allotted and since admittedly the petitioner is senior most, he was entitled to 42 marks. Next item is insurance qualification which has 8 marks. Thus, there is no dispute that this petitioner would get 50 marks on the said aspect namely; (a) Seniority and (b) Insurance Qualification. The next columns are (c) C. R. Form and (d) Interview. Insofar as (c) is concerned, we have not been shown as to how the petitioner was anyway lower in getting the marks compared to the other officers who superseded him. Thus, the total number of marks for (c) (i) (ii) & (iii) are 50 marks. We have opened the envelope submitted to us by counsel for the respondent no.1 and we find from the said envelope that the petitioner was given 37.71 marks out of 50 and respondent no.6-Arunachalam Subramanian was given 49.59 marks on 7.1 (c) (i) to (iii). Thus, we find that the petitioner was entitled to full 50 marks on account of (a) Seniority and (b) Insurance Qualification, in addition to 37.61 marks. But respondent no. 1 is not ready to show us the marks obtained by respondent no.6 on account of (a) & (b). The reason appears to be that the petitioner is shown at Serial No. 105 while respondent no.6 at Serial No. 422 in the seniority list as on 01.01.1998. We thus find that respondent no.1 was not at all justified in denying the promotion to the petitioner and unnecessarily putting him to harassment. 8. It is the fact that the petitioner has rightly claimed that respondent no.1 did not implement the policy of reservation in the matter of promotion for the employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The tale telling facts narrated above show that merely because the petitioner was a member of Scheduled Caste, he was deliberately denied the promotion, though he was the senior most and had absolutely no adverse record against him on any count and had more marks than that of respondent no.6-Arunachalam Subramanian and other 19 officers, who superseded him. This is a case of clear cut injustice. Therefore, we think that some amount of cost should be paid to the petitioner apart from the grant of relief. 9. In the result, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Writ Petition No. 1629/1998 is allowed. This is a case of clear cut injustice. Therefore, we think that some amount of cost should be paid to the petitioner apart from the grant of relief. 9. In the result, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Writ Petition No. 1629/1998 is allowed. (ii) It is declared that the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and shall be granted deemed date in the matter of promotion with continuity of service and all monetary benefits including difference of arrears of salary and terminal benefits from the date when his first junior superseded him in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. The implementation of the above shall be made within a period of four months from today. After four months, the respondent no.1 will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on these monetary benefits till the actual payment. (ii) Respondent no.1 shall pay costs of this petition, in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, to the petitioner within a period of four months from today. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.