JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Shri Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh S/o. Haji Ahad Sheikh R/o Kralpora (Chadoora) Budgam-respondent No. 1 herein, an employee of appellant Corporation aggrieved that his junior colleague-respondent No. 2 herein was granted promotion ahead of him and allowed to steal march over him approached writ Court with writ petition being SWP No. 391/1997. The case set up was that though the respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) joined appellant Corporation in the year 1996 i.e. two years ahead to respondent No. 1-writ petitioner, yet as he was placed in the grade of Rs. 1350-2400 on 9th December 1973, while respondent No. 2 was placed in said grade on 24th November 1982, he was senior to respondent No. 2 and entitled to get next promotion ahead of respondent No. 2 or at least on the date respondent No. 2 was granted such promotion. Learned Single Judge on perusal of the pleadings and the material placed on the record found merit in the petitioner's case and disposed of petition on 30th January 2008, with the direction to respondents to give effect to the petitioner's promotion ordered vide Order No. JKI/1062/1997, dated 26-12-1997, from the date of promotion of respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition). 2. The writ Court Judgment is questioned in the Letters Patent Appeal on hand on the grounds set out in the memo of appeal. 3. Heard and considered. 4. The main plank of appellant's case is that respondents 1 and 2 belong to two different cadres and therefore had to follow two different promotional routes. It is pleaded that while respondent No. 1 -writ petitioner was from "Accounts and Finance Wing", respondent No. 2 favoured with promotion ahead of respondent No. 1 belong to "Planning and Finance Cadre". It is pleaded that because of the dissimilarity between respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) and respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition), the former could not claim the same treatment as given to the respondent No. 2. 5. A closer look at the record available to the writ court indicates that grounds urged in the memo of appeal are devoid of any substance. Perusal of the record would reveal that both the respondents worked as Accountant Assistants/Cost Assistants in the grade of Rs. 330-650. The record does not point to any separate categorization of respondents. 5. A closer look at the record available to the writ court indicates that grounds urged in the memo of appeal are devoid of any substance. Perusal of the record would reveal that both the respondents worked as Accountant Assistants/Cost Assistants in the grade of Rs. 330-650. The record does not point to any separate categorization of respondents. Respondent No. 1 in the seniority list circulated on 21st December 1994, ranked senior to respondent No. 2. The change in categorization was much after the seniority was circulated. The change did not put respondent in two different Cadres. The cadre as pointed out by learned Single Judge may comprise of different categories clubbed together to form the Cadre. Respondent No. 1 could not be denied the benefits as extended to respondent No. 2 on the strength of Corrigendum dated 22nd February 1995 to the seniority list, circulated on 21st December 1994. Even if, it is assumed that respondents belonged to two different categories, yet they were all along in the same Cadre. Category is not to be confused with Cadre. The respondent No. 1 ranked senior to respondent No. 2 in the same Cadre, and had a right to be considered for promotion to next level, alongside respondent No. 2. 6. Viewed thus, the conclusion drawn by learned writ Court is not open to question on the grounds set out in the appeal. The writ court Judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity as would warrant interference. The Letters patent Appeal is therefore dismissed. The writ court Judgment be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the Judgment.