ORDER ON BOARD BY : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-5-2012 (Annexure-P/1) wherein the petitioner, who was working as an Accountant, was not considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and his name was eliminated on the ground that he failed to achieve the benchmark of merit. 2. According to the petitioner, Respondents No.3 to 5 herein were considered for promotion, despite the fact that they were junior to the petitioner in the gradation list from the initial date of appointment. Appointment order dated 26-5-2007 (Annexure-P/2), issued by the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, would show that the name of the petitioner is at S.No.5 in the order of seniority and the names of the respondents No.3 to 5 are at S.No.6 to 8, respectively. Subsequent gradation list (Annexure-P/3), which continued the seniority cumulatively, would show that the petitioner was above the respondents No.3 to 5. 3. Petitioner contends that in the case at hand, by applying the wrong method the merit was given first preference and seniority was placed at back seat. According to the petitioner, since the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Class I, II, III & IV) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules, 2005’) envisages that the entitlement for promotion would be seniority-cum-merit that could not have been disturbed even by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), therefore, the petitioner, who was deprived of his promotion, is entitled for the promotional benefits from 4-5-2012 on the date the respondents No.3 to 5, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, per contra, would submit that the case of the petitioner was considered in the DPC and since the petitioner could not achieve the criteria of benchmark of merit, therefore, he fell short to be considered in the DPC. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Rule 16 of the Rules, 2005 provides for preparation of list of suitable officers/officials. Rule 16 (ii) envisages that the selection for inclusion in service shall be based on seniority-cum-merit basis and the select list shall be prepared accordingly. Rule 16 of the Rules, 2005 is relevant and quoted below : 16. 6. Rule 16 of the Rules, 2005 provides for preparation of list of suitable officers/officials. Rule 16 (ii) envisages that the selection for inclusion in service shall be based on seniority-cum-merit basis and the select list shall be prepared accordingly. Rule 16 of the Rules, 2005 is relevant and quoted below : 16. Preparation of list of Suitable Officers/ Officials (i) The Selection Committee shall prepare a select list of such persons out of the officers/officials falling in the zone of consideration, as satisfy the condition prescribed in Rule 15 above and are held by the selection committee to be suitable for promotion to the service. The list shall be sufficient to cover the anticipated vacancies on account of retirement and promotion during the course of one year from the date of preparation of the select list. (ii) The selection for inclusion in service shall be based on seniority-cum-merit basis and the select list shall be prepared accordingly. (iii) A person, whose name is included in select list but who is not promoted during the validity of the shall have no claim to seniority over those considered in a subsequent selection, merely by the fact of his earlier selection. (iv) The list so prepared shall be reviewed every year. If in the process of review or revision, it is proposed to supersede any person of the service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession. 7. The appointment letter dated 26-5-2007 (Annexure-P/2) would show that the name of the petitioner is at S.No.5 whereas the names of the respondents No.3 to 5 are at S.No.6 to 8, respectively. The gradation list (Annexure-P/3) also affirms the said fact. 8. Along with the return, copy of the DPC proceedings dated 16-3- 2012 has been filed. From the same, it is manifest that the criteria, which was adopted, was merit-cum-seniority. The said procedure adopted by the DPC is de hors the provisions of Rule 16(ii) of the Rules, 2005. The petitioner is shown to have procured 13th position in the merit and the DPC sailed on wrong presumption de hors the Rule 16(ii) and given first preference to merit and the back seat was given to the seniority while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner is shown to have procured 13th position in the merit and the DPC sailed on wrong presumption de hors the Rule 16(ii) and given first preference to merit and the back seat was given to the seniority while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. Albeit the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer subsequently by order dated 31-3-2021, copy of which is placed during the course of hearing, but the petitioner was deprived wrongly of his promotional entitlement. 9. In the matter of State of Kerala and Another vs. N.M. Thomas and Others, (1976) 2 SCC 310 the Supreme Court held that seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of B.V. Sivaiah and Others vs. K. Addanki Babu and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 720 held thus at para 18 : 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. 11. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits as also the seniority from the date his juniors i.e. respondents No.3 to 5 were given promotion i.e. 4-5-2012. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.