JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. S. Borthakur the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 8. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the non-selection of the petitioner to the post of LDA, Junior Administrative Assistant by the respondent Nos.4 & 5 in terms with the criteria laid down by the Assam Chief Judicial Magistrates Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1987’) whereby in terms with Rule 6 (4) (c), the criteria is seniority-cum-merit. 3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner herein was appointed as a Peon in the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar in the year 2013 vide an order dated 14.08.2013 and he joined his services on 16.08.2013. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discharging his duties with sincerity and dedication and to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities. On 07.09.2024, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Selection Board, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar-cum-Chairman of the Selection Board had issued a notice asking various persons including the petitioner and the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 to appear in an interview to be held on 23.09.2024 for promotion to one vacant post of LDA (STP) and two vacant posts of Copyist (UR). From the very notice, it would be seen that the criteria for the interview was set out, i.e. the ACR, draft of application, notes etc. and the viva-voce would be taken into consideration for the purpose of selection. 4. During the course of hearing, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court placed before this Court certain instructions along with the records. In the said records so produced, the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board held on 22.08.2024 was also placed before this Court. A perusal of the said minutes of the meeting dated 22.08.2024 would show that the procedure on the basis of which the selection would be conducted have been duly mentioned. In the said records so produced, the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board held on 22.08.2024 was also placed before this Court. A perusal of the said minutes of the meeting dated 22.08.2024 would show that the procedure on the basis of which the selection would be conducted have been duly mentioned. It however surprises this Court that although in terms with Rule 6 (4) (c) of the Rules of 1987, the criteria to promotion to the post of LDA was seniority-cum-merit, but the minutes of the Selection Board held on 22.08.2024 did not conceive of fixing any bench mark to evaluate the minimum requisite merit and suitability of the candidate amongst the eligible persons. It is further seen from the materials which have been placed before this Court by Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 that each of the 10 candidates who were taken into consideration were adjudged purely on merit and this very aspect of the matter could be apparent from the instructions so placed. It is on the basis of the said procedure so adopted, the impugned order was passed on 19.10.2024 whereby the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 were promoted to the post of Copyist and LDA. The instructions which have been placed by Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 is kept on record and marked with the letter “X” collectively. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in this regard and I have also taken note of Rule 6(4) (c) of the Rules of 1987 which specifically mandates that the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- merit. 6. At this stage, this Court taking into account the manner in which the Selection Committee proceeded with the selection finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Sivaiah & Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 , wherein the difference between the principle of merit-cum-seniority, vis-à-vis, the principle of seniority-cum-merit were explained. Vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 , wherein the difference between the principle of merit-cum-seniority, vis-à-vis, the principle of seniority-cum-merit were explained. It was observed by the Supreme Court that where promotion is to be based on principle of merit-cum-seniority, a greater emphasis is laid on merit and the ability of the candidate and the seniority is to be given weight where merit and ability are approximately equal. Whereas when it comes to the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority alone, subject to having the minimum requisite merit and suitability of the candidate amongst the eligible persons. The Supreme Court further observed that the principle of merit-cum-seniority postulates the requirement of making a comparative assessment of merit, whereas no such comparative assessment is required, where the criterion for promotion is based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It was further observed that if the candidates have the same length of service, it is only to be determined whether the candidates possess the minimum required threshold of merit or not. 7. The Supreme Court further observed that where the criterion of promotion is seniority-cum-merit, marks can only be prescribed as a minimum qualifying requirement, and as such, where promotion was being given to the eligible senior-most candidates on the basis of their individual marks, such promotion would be contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. 8. Taking into account the above laid down principles by the Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Sivaiah (supra) and the manner in which the selection was carried out by the Respondent Selection Committee, this Court is of the opinion that the criterion so adopted was merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit. 9. Taking into account the above proposition of law, it would be seen that the Selection Committee, i.e. the respondent Nos.4 & 5 had applied the wrong yardstick and had in fact assessed the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 along with other candidates on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not on seniority-cum-merit. 9. Consequently, as the above promotion so made is contrary to Rule 6(4) (c) of the Rules of 1987, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 is required to be interfered with. 10. 6, 7 & 8 along with other candidates on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not on seniority-cum-merit. 9. Consequently, as the above promotion so made is contrary to Rule 6(4) (c) of the Rules of 1987, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 is required to be interfered with. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The order dated 19.10.2024 issued by the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sivasagar whereby the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 were promoted to the post of Copyist as well as LDA are set aside and quashed. (ii) In view of the setting aside and quashing of the order dated 19.10.2024, the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are directed to forthwith take appropriate steps to fill up the vacancies by following the mandate of Rule 6(4) (c) of the Rules of 1987 and more particularly the criteria, i.e.seniority-cum-merit. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.