WP(C) 149/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged th e Annexure-E order dated 24.12.2007 by which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have be en promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant (UDA) from that of Lower Div ision Assistant (LDA). The petitioner has also challenged the minutes of the sel ection committee dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure-C). 2. The basic grounds on which the petitioner has made the aforesaid challen ge is that she being senior to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, ought to have been p referred over the said two respondents. According to the petitioner, a gradatio n list was prepared by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mongoldoi on 06.1 2.2006 in which she was placed at serial No. 6 ahead of the said two respondents who had been placed at serial No. 7 and 8. In this connection, the petitioner h as placed reliance on Annexure-D gradation list dated 06.12.2006. The petitioner has also alleged that the reservation rules applicable to the case was not foll owed which resulted in deprivation of promotion to her. 3. We have considered the entire materials on record and have given our anx ious consideration to the same. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the official and the private responden ts, the contentions raised in the writ petition have been denied. It has been st ated that in the merit list prepared for the purpose of initial appointment to t he post of LDC, the respondent No. 5 occupied merit potion at serial No. 1 while the petitioner occupied serial No. 9. As regards the plea of the petitioner tha t she had joined the post of LDA on 18.09.1989 as against joining on 19.09.89 by the respondent No. 5, it has been contended that irrespective of such dates of joining, the merit positions of the candidates in the merit list would determine the seniority position. So far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, it has bee n stated that she is senior to the petitioner inasmuch as she had joined the est ablishment as Copyist which is in the same grade of LDA on 08.06.1987 and therea fter joined as LDA on 19.09.1989. Thus, counting her service in the same grade w.e.f. 08.06.1987, she was conferred higher seniority over the petitioner. Be it stated here that the respondent No. 4 belongs to the reserved category, she bei ng ST(P). 5. In the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee (DLC) held on 14.12.2007, the above aspects of the matter have been discussed in detail. T he committee found all the three incumbents, i.e. the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 an d the petitioner suitable for promotion. However, based on the aforesaid determi nation of seniority of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over the petitioner, they wer e promoted to the promotional post. The committee also resolved to promote the p etitioner to the post of UDA in the establishment of the Addl. Chief Judicial Ma gistrate from the date of its functioning. Thus, it is not the case of deprivati on of promotion to the petitioner. The selection committee was fully alive to th e case of the petitioner, but in view of the aforesaid seniority position of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over her, she could not be promoted instantaneously. Ho wever, it was resolved to promote her with the functioning of the court of the A ddl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. The petitioner cannot claim seniority over the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 o n the basis her date of joining, i.e. 18.09.1989. Iirrespective of joining the s ervice by the respondent No. 4 which was one day later than her on 19.08.1989, t he seniority will have to be determined on the basis of the merit positions obta ined by them in the selection. Admittedly as against the merit position occupied by the respondent No. 5 at serial No. 1, the petitioner occupied merit position at serial No. 9. So far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, apart from the fa ct that she belongs to ST (P), she joined the post of Copyist in the same grade in the year 1987 and to be precise on 08.06.1987. Thereafter, she joined as LDA on 19.09.1989. In our considered view, there is nothing wrong in reckoning her t o be senior to the petitioner taking into account her service in the same grade w.e.f. 08.06.1987. 7. When all the incumbents are suitable for promotion, such promotion have to be effected on the basis of their seniority position. Although the petitioner has placed reliance on the purported gradation list dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure- D), but in absence of any approval of the same by the District and Session Judge , it cannot be said to have attained the finality. That apart, when the rules pr escribe a particular mode of determination of seniority, learned CJM could not h ave drawn seniority list in violation of the said mode of determination of senio rity. Rule 12 of the Assam Judicial Magistrate Establishment (Ministerial) Servi ces, 1987, clearly stipulates that when more than one person are appointed on th e same date, their inter se seniority shall be determined according to their pos ition in the merit list. Both the incumbents, i.e. the petitioner and the respon dent No. 5, had been appointed on the same date, i.e. 16.09.1989. Thus, they had 15 days joining time to their credit. Merely because the petitioner had joined one day ahead of the respondent No. 5, she cannot claim seniority over him irres pective of the merit position obtained by her in the selection which is at seria l No. 9 as against the merit position No. 1 occupied by the respondent No. 5. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned minutes of the selection dated 14.12.2007 and the order of promotion d ated 24.12.2007. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed leaving the pa rties to bear their own costs.