JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.4.2018, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition having been filed by the respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’), directed the appellant-respondent-Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent-Board’) to consider and confer promotion to the petitioner against the post of “Foreman all Trades” from the date when the private respondents were promoted to the same posts and, in the seniority list, place the petitioner above the private respondents. However, learned Single Judge, while granting aforesaid relief, held that the petitioner shall be entitled to deemed promotion with benefits, which shall also be deemed and actual benefits including promotional and monetary shall accrue upon the petitioner as from the date of passing of the judgment. 2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, as emerged from the record, are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Board as Welder Grade- II on 13.08.1993 and subsequently he came to be promoted as Welder Grade-I w.e.f. 12.10.1998. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos.4 to 7 joined the respondent-Board as Crane Operators Grade-I on 14.10.1994. Respondent-Board has framed Bhakra Beas Management Board ‘Class III & IV Employees’ (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994 (Annexure P-1 annexed with the Writ Petition) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations, 1994’), which clearly provide that the post of “Foreman all Trades”, shall be filled up 33% by way of direct recruitment from amongst three year diploma holders in specified technical trade and 67% by way of promotions from respective trades, which otherwise stand duly mentioned in the said Regulations. 3. Careful perusal of aforesaid Regulations, suggests that the posts of Welder Grade-1 as well as Crane Operator Grade-1 are the feeder category posts for promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” and, as such, there is no dispute that petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 to 7 were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” after completion of specific years of service being in the feeder category. Similarly Regulations, as referred above, further suggest that Welder Grade-I is eligible to be promoted to the post of “Foreman all Trades” after completion of eight years service, whereas Crane Operator Grade-1 becomes eligible for the same post after putting in twelve years service. It is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be promoted as Welder Grade-1 w.e.f. 12.10.1998 and, as such, after having completed eight years of service, he became eligible for promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” w.e.f. 12.10.2006, whereas, private respondents, who were appointed as Crane Operators Grade- 1 on 14.10.1994, acquired eligibility for promotion to the post of ‘Foreman all Trades’ after putting in twelve years service as Crane Operator Grade-1 w.e.f. 14.10.2006. 4. In the case at hand, petitioner’s grouse is that he despite having acquired eligibility for the promotion to the post of “Foreman All Trades” much prior to the private respondents, was ignored for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-1, whereas, respondent-Board illegally in violation of Regulations promoted private respondents vide Office Order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P-2 annexed with the petition). Petitioner’s further grievance is that private respondents were promoted to the post in question ignoring his seniority, which act of the respondents, is/was not only in violation of the aforesaid Regulations, but also arbitrary and illegal, and as such the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Careful perusal of reply having been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board suggests that facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not denied, rather an attempt has been made by respondent-Board to justify their act on the ground that as per Regulations, the promotional post was “Foreman all Trades” and feeder category, from which promotion was to be made, comprised of various Trades and, as such, promotions were made by the respondent-Board not only on the basis of seniority of eligible candidates, but also by taking into consideration that all Trades were equally represented for the purpose of promotion. 6. 6. Learned Single Judge, having perused pleadings adduced on record as well as Regulations of the respondent- Board, arrived at a conclusion that action of respondent- Board in promoting private respondents ahead of petitioner is not justified in terms of Regulations, which clearly provide that post of “Foreman all Trades” is required to be filled up 33% by way of direct recruitment from amongst three year diploma holders in specified technical trade and 67% by way of promotions from respective trades, which so stand mentioned in the said Regulations. Learned Single Judge, while rejecting the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent-Board that promotion had to be made from specific Trade from the feeder categories mentioned therein, came to the conclusion that the Regulations, which govern promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” do not provide any quota for different categories. Otherwise also, it is well settled law that when there are more than one sources of recruitment which also includes promotion to a post in issue, then after persons are appointed to that particular post from various sources, they lose their birth mark. Learned Single Judge, while returning the findings, also took into consideration Annexure P-2 i.e. Office Order vide which private respondents were promoted to the post in question and arrived at the conclusion that the private respondents, who otherwise belong to the feeder category i.e. Crane Operator Grade-I, were promoted to the posts of “Foreman Special Instrument Repair, Foreman Special Rigging, Foreman Penstock and Foreman Tractor Repair, respectively” meaning thereby that respondents No.4 to 7 were not appointed against particular Trade, rather they being in the feeder categories were considered for promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades”. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 8. Having carefully perused pleadings, material available on record as well as judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 8. Having carefully perused pleadings, material available on record as well as judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-Board, that judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not based upon correct appreciation of Rules and Regulations governing promotions to the post of “Foreman all Trades” rather, this Court, having carefully gone through the Regulations (Annexure P-1), find no reason to differ with the findings returned by learned Single Judge that Regulations, which govern to the post of “Foreman all Trades” do not provide quota for different categories which find mentioned therein, rather all the persons prescribed as feeder categories in the Rules itself are eligible to be promoted to the post of “Foreman all Trades” after completion of particular years of service as stands prescribed in the Regulations itself. 9. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted as Welder Grade-I w.e.f. 12.10.1998 and as such he, after having completed eight years of service, had become eligible for the promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” w.e.f. 12.10.2006, whereas, on the other hand, private respondents, who were appointed as Crane Operator on 14.10.1994, acquired eligibility for the promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” after completion of 12 years service as Crane Operator Grade-I w.e.f. 14.10.2006. Admittedly, petitioner, being senior in the feeder category, was required to be considered ahead of private respondents for the promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades”. Another argument advanced by Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, that as per Regulations, promotions had to be made from respective Trades from the feeder categories mentioned therein, is wholly misconceived and deserves outright rejection. He argued that since no post of Foreman from the Trade of the petitioner was available, he could not be considered for the post in question. As per Mr. Sood, had the post of “Foreman all Trades” being vacated by a person, who was promoted as such from Welder Grade-1, then the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the said post. 10. Having carefully perused Regulations (Annexure P-1), we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid arguments advanced by Mr. As per Mr. Sood, had the post of “Foreman all Trades” being vacated by a person, who was promoted as such from Welder Grade-1, then the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the said post. 10. Having carefully perused Regulations (Annexure P-1), we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid arguments advanced by Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, being wholly un-tenable. Careful perusal of Regulations reveals that the same nowhere provide any quota for different categories mentioned therein, rather same suggests that anybody from the feeder category, which otherwise stands duly defined in the Regulations itself, is eligible for the post of “Foreman all Trades” subject to completion of specified years of service as mentioned in the Regulations. 11. Interestingly, in the case at hand, respondent-Board tried to justify their act on the ground that the petitioner was denied promotion because there was no vacancy of “Foreman all Trades” vacated by a person, who was promoted to the said post from the category of Welder Grade-1, but, as has been taken note hereinabove, careful perusal of Office Order (Annexure P-2 annexed with the Writ Petition), whereby private respondents came to be promoted to the posts in question, clearly suggests that private respondents, who otherwise belong to the feeder category of Crane Operators Grade-1 came to be promoted against the vacant post of Foreman Special Instrument Repair, Foreman Special Rigging, Foreman Penstock and Foreman Tractor Repair, respectively and, as such, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that promotion order of the private respondents is self speaking that it is not as if promotions from various feeder categories to the post of “Foreman all Trades” were made only against “respective Trades”, rather private respondents being in feeder category came to be considered for the promotion to the post of “Foreman all Trades” though wrongly. 12. By now it is well settled law that though an employee has no right to claim promotion, however, he has a fundamental right of being considered for promotion. But, in the case at hand, respondent-Board, solely with a view to extend undue benefit to private respondents, not only denied right of promotion to the petitioner, rather failed to consider his case for promotion. It is also not in dispute that post in question is non-selection post and the same is to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. But, in the case at hand, respondent-Board, solely with a view to extend undue benefit to private respondents, not only denied right of promotion to the petitioner, rather failed to consider his case for promotion. It is also not in dispute that post in question is non-selection post and the same is to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. There is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted against the post of “Foreman all Trades” ahead of respondents because he after having acquired status of Welder Grade-I w.e.f. 12.10.1998 had also completed eight years of service and, as such, had become eligible for the post of “Foreman all Trades” w.e.f. 12.10.2006, whereas private respondents acquired eligibility to the post of “Foreman all Trades” after putting 12 years service of Crane Operator Grade-I w.e.f. 14.10.2006. It is well settled that when promotion is to be made to a non-selection post, the principle which governs the field is that promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority, subject to rejection of an unfit candidate. But, in the present case, private respondents came to be promoted to the post of “Foreman all Trades” ahead of petitioner wrongly ignoring his seniority and, as such, learned Single Judge rightly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. 13. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of Regulations/Rules governing the field and, as such, the same is upheld. This appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. 14. All interim orders are vacated and all the pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.