JUDGMENT : NANI TAGIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. None has appeared for the respondent no. 5, despite service of notice as indicated in the Office note, dated 23.08.2016, 16.03.2017 and 20.03.2017. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 02.02.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding, Longding District, vide Memo No. ESTT/DPC/GRADE D&C/13/4993-98, whereby, the respondent no. 5, who was working as an Upper Division Clerk (PR), Additional Deputy Commissioner’s Office Kanubari has been promoted as Sub-Divisional Head Assistant/Head Assistant (SDHA/HA), pursuant to a recommendation made by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC). 3. The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows: While assailing the aforesaid order of promotion, dated 02.02.2016, whereby, the respondent no. 5 has been promoted as SDHA/HA from UDC, the petitioner contends that in terms of the Seniority List of the Upper Division Clerk, under General Administration, Longding, Longding District, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding District, Longding, on 08.12.2015, vide Memo No. LDG/ESTT/GRADE ‘C’/16, the petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 3, whereas, the respondent no. 5 has been placed at Serial No. 4 of the said Seniority List and accordingly, the petitioner is senior to the respondent no. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that promotion to the post of SDHA/HA is regulated by The General Arunachal Pradesh Group “C” (Ministerial) Common Recruitment Rules, 2008, whereby, the post of SDHA/HA has been provided as a non-selection post to be filled up in the ratio of 75% by promotion from the post of UDC of the respective Department with 3(three) years of regular service in the grade, failing which by transfer on deputation from Arunachal Pradesh State Government employees holding analogous post on regular basis, or, UDCs with 3(three) years regular service in the post and the 25% of the post through limited Departmental competitive examination failing which transfer on deputation. The promotion from the UDC to the post of SDHA/HA is required to be made under the Rules by a DPC comprising of the members specified, therein. The promotion from the UDC to the post of SDHA/HA is required to be made under the Rules by a DPC comprising of the members specified, therein. The petitioner accordingly contends that since the post of SDHA/HA is a non-selection post, the prime consideration for promotion from the post of UDC ought to have been the seniority position of the employee in the cadre of UDC. The petitioner being senior to the respondent no. 5, the respondent authorities have unjustifiedly denied the petitioner promotion to the post of SDHA/HA and the impugned order of promotion, dated 02.02.2016, whereby, the respondent no. 5 has been promoted as SDHA/HA in super-session of the writ petitioner is in violation of the Recruitment Rules and therefore, requires interference by this Court. 4. The State respondent nos. 1 to 4 have filed a counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that a Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) which was constituted on 22.01.2016 for consideration of promotion to the post of SDHA/HA, held its proceeding on 27.01.2016, in which the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of all the UDCs whose case were considered, were examined and after overall consideration of the ACRs, it was found that the ACR of the respondent no. 5 was found to be best amongst all the candidates and hence, the DPC recommended the name of the respondent no. 5 for promotion to the post of SDHA/HA. The State respondents in the counter-affidavit have further stated in paragraph-8, thereof, that the latest performance report of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.01.2014 (wrongly typed as 28.01.2016) to January 2015, issued by the appointing and controlling officer was not at all satisfactory. The Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) held on 27.01.2016 also took note of the latest performance report of the officials and it was for the non-satisfactory performance given by the officials to the writ petitioner that the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of SDHA/HA was not considered. 5. Mr. The Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) held on 27.01.2016 also took note of the latest performance report of the officials and it was for the non-satisfactory performance given by the officials to the writ petitioner that the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of SDHA/HA was not considered. 5. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the post of SDHA/HA is a non-selection post and therefore, the prime consideration in the matter of promotion of the said post being the seniority of the persons holding the feeder cadre of UDC, the petitioner could not have been denied promotion on the basis of adverse performance report given by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding, since, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is senior to the respondent no. 5. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Longding, dated 31.01.2014, vide No. ESTT/PF/KI/01, whereby, the petitioner has been certified to be an obedient, hard-working, sincere and punctual in his duty. 6. Mr. Y. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate on the other hand by referring to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, has submitted that since the denial of the promotion to the writ petitioner was based on the latest adverse performance report, issued by the controlling officer and on an overall perusal of the ACRs of all those, whose case for promotion were considered, no illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities in promoting the respondent no. 5, who though may be junior to the petitioner, was found to have the best ACR amongst all the UDCs, whose case for promotion were considered. Accordingly, Mr. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate submits that the impugned order of promotion, dated 02.02.2016, requires no interference by this Court. 7. Rival contentions advanced at the Bar, have received due consideration of this Court and the materials placed before this Court have been perused. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had joined as UDC on 23.11.2001 and the respondent no. 5 had joined as UDC on 28.11.2001, as indicated in the Seniority List of UDC, under General Administration, Longding, Longding District, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding on 08.12.2015. 5 had joined as UDC on 28.11.2001, as indicated in the Seniority List of UDC, under General Administration, Longding, Longding District, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding on 08.12.2015. It is also not in dispute that the promotion to the post of SDHA/HA is governed by The General Arunachal Pradesh Group “C” (Ministerial) Common Recruitment Rules, 2008. Under the said Rule, in Column 5 thereof, the post of SDHA/HA has been shown as non-selection post, which would indicate that the promotion to the post of SDHA/HA would have to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 9. In a promotion made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. In the case of B.V. Sivaiah and Others vs. K. Addanki Babu and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 720 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-18 insofar as the criteria of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit have held has under: “18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of ‘seniority-cum-merit’ in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.” 10. As can be gathered from the law laid down in B.V. Sivaiah (supra), quoted hereinabove, that in a promotion made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, no comparative assessment of the merit is required to be made and the senior, though less meritorious, shall have priority provided the senior possesses the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down, the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down, the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. As such, assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle the person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 11. In the light of the above, when the facts of the instant case is examined, it is noticed that respondent no. 5 has been promoted as SDHA/HA superseding the petitioner on the basis of examination of the ACRs and the latest performance report of the petitioner given by the controlling officer. The respondent authorities in the instant case, therefore, appears to have not made an objective assessment of relative merit of not only the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent no. 5 but of all the candidates who were considered for promotion as SDHA/HA in order to find out the position of minimum necessary merit, by laying down the minimum standard that is required and also by prescribing the mode of assessment of employee under consideration as well as by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of the performance on the basis of service record and interview. 12. In the absence of such exercise undertaken by the respondent authorities in the instant case as held in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra) and instead putting up a justification in the counter-affidavit that the promotion of the respondent no. 5 superseding the writ petitioner was made on an overall examination of the ACRs and on the basis of latest performance report of the petitioner submitted by the controlling officer, cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, in the light of what have been discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that the impugned promotion order dated 02.02.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding District, vide Memo No. ESTT/DPC/GRADE ‘D&C’/13/4993-98, promoting the respondent no. 5 as SDHA/HA cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside and quashed with a further direction to the respondent authorities to considerer afresh the case of the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 5 as SDHA/HA cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside and quashed with a further direction to the respondent authorities to considerer afresh the case of the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 5 along with the other employees eligible for promotion to the post of SDHA/HA, in accordance with The General Arunachal Pradesh Group “C” (Ministerial) Common Recruitment Rules, 2008 and also by following the procedure prescribed in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), as discussed hereinabove. 14. The fresh consideration by the respondent authorities as directed above, shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 15. Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and disposed of.