JUDGMENT : Manoj K. Tiwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of this writ petition, the following relief has been sought:- “(a) Issue an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders or direction or directions to the respondents authority to allow the petitioner in the interview likely to be held on 04/05 January 2018 for the promotion to the cadre of HJS, as this Hon’ble Court has already been pleased to grant permission for written examination in an earlier writ petition as mentioned above and also reserve a post of HJS Officer to the petitioner till the final disposal of this writ petition.” 3. Petitioner is a judicial officer, who was initially appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the year 2003. In the year 2009, her batch-mates, including juniors, were promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), but petitioner was not promoted on account of penalty of stoppage of one increment, imposed on her in the year 2008. 4. Petitioner was ultimately promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the year 2013. Thus, her promotion to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) got delayed by nearly four years on account of penalty imposed on her. 5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has staked her claim for promotion to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service under Rule 6(a) of the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004. Rule 6(a) and 6(b) of the aforesaid Rules as amended vide notification dated 25.02.2016 are extracted below:- “Amendment of clause (a) and (b) of rule 6- “In the principal rules, for clause (a) and (b) of rule 6, set out in column-below, the clauses as set out in column-2 shall be substituted namely- Column 1 Existing rule Column 2 Rule hereby substituted 6(a): Sixty Five percent by promotion by amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principal of merit-cum-seniority; 6(a): Sixty Five percent by promotion from amongst the confirmed officers of the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) having minimum 5 years of service as such in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority, to be judged as per rule-20 on the first day of the calendar year of recruitment. Provided that Judicial officer, who has been awarded penalty, shall not be considered for promotion and selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, for three year from the date of award of penalty. However, such officer, who is facing disciplinary action, shall be considered, but his result shall be kept in sealed cover for one year subject to the final outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, whichever is earlier. (b) Ten percent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years Service as Civil Judge (Senior Division). (b) Ten percent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination from amongst the confirmed Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years Service as such on the first day of the calendar year of recruitment; Provided that the judicial officer, who has been awarded penalty, shall not be considered for selection through limited competitive examination for three years from the date of award of penalty. However, such officer, who is facing disciplinary action, shall be considered, but, his result shall be kept in sealed cover for one year subject to the final outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, whichever is earlier. 6. Perusal of Rule 6(a) and 6(b) reveals that completion of qualifying service of five years in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the first day of the calendar year of recruitment is one of the essential conditions for the eligibility. A Judicial Officer, who does not meet the said requirement cannot be considered for promotion under Rule 6(a) or Rule 6(b). 7. Admittedly, petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the year 2013, therefore, she does not meet the requirement of Rule 6(a) and 6(b) i.e. qualifying service of five years in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Consequently, she has not been included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service. 8. As per the averment made in the writ petition, interview for promotion to Higher Judicial Service Cadre was going to be held on 04/05 January, 2018, therefore, Registrar General was called in Court. Consequently, she has not been included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service. 8. As per the averment made in the writ petition, interview for promotion to Higher Judicial Service Cadre was going to be held on 04/05 January, 2018, therefore, Registrar General was called in Court. He has apprised that petitioner is yet to complete required qualifying service of five years in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), therefore, she is not eligible to be considered for promotion against 65% quota provided under Rule 6(a) of the aforesaid Rules. 9. In the present writ petition, contention of the petitioner is that although her promotion to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) got delayed due to the punishment imposed in the year 2008, nevertheless she will regain her seniority over persons who are junior to her in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Since, those junior persons are being considered for promotion against 65% quota provided under Rule 6(a), therefore, according to petitioner, her claim for promotion cannot be ignored. 10. Admittedly, petitioner has not completed qualifying service of five years in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the first day of calendar year of recruitment, therefore, she is not eligible to be considered for promotion against 65% quota provided in Rule 6(a) of the aforesaid Rules. Promotion to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service is governed by statutory Rules, which lay down the conditions of eligibility, therefore, a person who does not meet the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the Rules cannot be considered for promotion. 11. Eligibility for promotion and seniority are two different concepts. A person, though senior, may not be eligible for promotion for want of fulfillment of some condition of eligibility prescribed in the service Rules. Similarly, a person who is included in the eligibility list for promotion may not necessarily be senior to all others, who have been left out. Eligibility for promotion is determined with reference to the requirement of the service Rules applicable for the promotional post, whereas seniority is determined with reference to date of substantive appointment of a person in the cadre. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the distinction between the concepts of seniority and eligibility in a judgment reported in the case of Palure Bhaskar Rao Versus P. Ramaseshaiah reported in 2017 (5) S.C.C. 783 . Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the distinction between the concepts of seniority and eligibility in a judgment reported in the case of Palure Bhaskar Rao Versus P. Ramaseshaiah reported in 2017 (5) S.C.C. 783 . Para 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are extracted below:- 16. Seniority and eligibility are also distinct concepts. As far as promotion or recruitment by transfer to a higher category or different service is concerned if the method of promotion is seniority-cum-merit or seniority per se, there is no question of eligible senior being superseded. Other things being equal, senior automatically gets promoted. But in the case of selection based on merit-cum-seniority, it is a settled principle that seniority has to give way to merit. Only if merit being equal senior will get the promotion. 17. Merely because a person is senior, if the senior is not otherwise eligible for consideration as per the rules for promotion, the senior will have to give way to the eligible juniors. The instant case is a classic example for the said principle. The Reserve Sub-Inspectors selected and appointed on transfer as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) carry seniority from the date of appointment as Reserve Sub-Inspectors. But the eligibility for appointment by way of a transfer to the post of Inspector under the A.P. Police Service requires 6 completed years of service after being recruited to the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). In other words, though the Reserve Sub-Inspector selected and appointed on transfer as Sub-Inspector (Civil) may be seniormost in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police, but still he will be ineligible for consideration of appointment as Inspector in case he does not have 6 years of service as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). All his juniors who have 6 years of service as Sub-Inspector of Police and having been recruited to that post from different categories are entitled to steal a march over him as the rule now stands. The rule-making authority in its wisdom has provided such a classification and we do not find any material on record to upset the said wisdom. 18. The view taken by us as above is fortified by the decision of this Court in R. Prabha Devi v. Union of India wherein it has been held that: (SCC pp. 241-42, para 15) “15. 18. The view taken by us as above is fortified by the decision of this Court in R. Prabha Devi v. Union of India wherein it has been held that: (SCC pp. 241-42, para 15) “15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years’ approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal: ‘When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience.’ ” The aforesaid view of this Court in R. Prabha Devi has been reiterated and followed in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa.” 12. Since, petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirement for promotion under Rule 6(a) of the aforesaid Rules, as she has not completed qualifying service of five years in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the first day of the calendar year of recruitment, therefore, she cannot lay store on inclusion of her juniors in the eligibility list. Petitioner has not been able to point out any statutory provision, which entitles a senior ineligible person to be included in the eligibility list, if his/her juniors have been so included in the eligibility list. In the absence of such provision in the applicable Rules, petitioner has no legally enforceable right to be included in the zone of consideration for promotion. 13. In such view of the matter, the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.