ORDER : Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may please to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, on above facts and circumstances, all proceedings, findings. recommendations of Respondent no. 3, assessment recorded on 13/03/2020 in Annexure P-1 by Respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the impugned order dated 18/03/2020 Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give promotion to the petitioners on post of Lab Assistant Class III declaring them fit to be promoted for Lab Assistant Class III with cost of litigation, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That any other relief which the Hon'ble Court thinks just and proper may also kindly be allowed in favour of petitioners in the interest of justice. By an amendment application, petitioners further sought following reliefs :- 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate order(s), direction(s) quashing the order dated 11.03.2024 and direct the Respondent State to grant seniority to the Petitioners prior to the date of promotion of Respondent No. 4 to13. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent State to act upon the recommendation made by the three members committee vide its report dated 13/01/2022.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that, the Petitioners were appointed on the post of Lab Attendant in the respondent department. They were placed above private Respondents No. 4 to 13. In the year 2020, the Respondent authorities convened Departmental Promotion Committee (henceforth, referred to as ‘DPC’) meeting for consideration of suitability of candidates for promotion from the post of Lab Attendant (Class IV post) to the post of Lab Assistant, which is a Class III post as per Rule 4(1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (henceforth, referred to as Promotion Rules, 2003). Respondent authorities fixed the criteria of awarding marks based on the ACR grading of each employee for the past 5 years and thus declared petitioners not suitable for promotion by assessing the ACR grading and granted promotion to private Respondent No. 4 to 13 who were junior to the Petitioners merely because the ACR grading of said private respondents were better than petitioners. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. After filing of the writ petition, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in the writ petition to bring on record the facts that, the respondent/State constituted a three members committee for examining the process of promotion from the post of Lab Attendant (Class-IV) to the post of Lab Assistant (Class III). The said three members committee, vide its report (Annexure P-7) dated 11-1-2022, after having examined the whole process of promotion adopted by the respondent/State, came to the conclusion that the promotion process adopted on 13-3-2020 was not in accordance with ^ofj"Brk≶&miqDrk* , there is no mention in Rule 17 of the Chhattisgarh State Forensic Science Laboratory (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 about giving promotion on the basis of marks of Confidential Report, and the Committee recommended for reconsideration of the promotion given on 13-3-2020 from the post of Lab Attendant (IV Class) to Lab Assistant (III Class) and Lab Assistant (III Class) to Lab Technician (III Class). Thereafter, vide Annexure P-7 dated 11-3-2024, the Respondent authorities have given promotion to the Petitioners from 11/03/2024 onwards and thus, the petitioners continued to remain juniors to Respondent No. 4 to 13. Therefore, the petitioners have filed instant petition seeking relief sought for by them in the writ petition as has been mentioned in opening paragraph. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, issue involved in instant petition is promotion of petitioners from the post of Lab Attendant, which is a class IV post, to the post of Lab Assistant, which is a class III post. Petitioners’ promotion is governed by the Promotion Rules, 2003 and as per Rule 4(1), basis of promotion from Class IV to Class III is ‘seniority subject to fitness’. He further submits that, in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 2020, juniors of petitioners were promoted only because, in the Annual Confidential Reports for some years, grading of petitioners was inferior to their juniors. He further submits that, in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 2020, juniors of petitioners were promoted only because, in the Annual Confidential Reports for some years, grading of petitioners was inferior to their juniors. Taking into account the inferior grading in ACRs, seniority of petitioners has been bypassed, which is against the Rule 4(1) of the Promotion Rules, 2003. He further submits that, interpretation of Rule and criteria of promotion on ‘seniority subject to fitness’ should only be understood in the sense that, employee should be promoted on the basis of seniority provided that, there is nothing adverse against him like, doubtful integrity, departmental enquiry, criminal case, penalty, deleterious material etc. In this regard, he relied in the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2017 SCC Online Chh. 1639) rendered by this Court, upheld by learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 247/2017. Learned counsel further submits that, since criteria for promotion of petitioners was ‘seniority subject to fitness’ and there is no adverse entry in their ACRs like doubtful integrity, departmental enquiry, criminal case, penalty or deleterious material etc., therefore, only because of inferior grading in ACR, petitioners cannot be deprived from promotion. Learned counsel further submits that, subsequent to filing of the instant writ petition, the respondent/State constituted a three members committee for examining the process of promotion from the post of Lab Attendant (Class-IV). The committee, vide its report (Annexure P-6 colly) dated11-1-2022, came to the conclusion that the promotion process adopted on 13-3-2020 was not in accordance with the rule i.e. ^ofj"Brk≶&miqDrk* , and the Committee recommended for reconsideration of the promotion given on 13-3-2020 from the post of Lab Attendant (IV Class) to Lab Assistant (III Class) and Lab Assistant (III Class) to Lab Technician (III Class). Thereafter, vide Annexure P-6 dated 11-3-2024 (Annexure P-6 has been marked twice), petitioners have been promoted from the post of ‘Lab Attendant’ to ‘Lab Assistant’, but this promotion has not been granted with retrospective effect, therefore, their juniors are still senior to them, which apart from causing monetary loss to them, will also affect their future prospect. Hence, he prayed that, petition may be allowed and petitioners may be directed to be promoted from the date their juniors were promoted by granting them seniority and all other benefits with retrospective effect. 4. The State has filed its reply. Learned Govt. Hence, he prayed that, petition may be allowed and petitioners may be directed to be promoted from the date their juniors were promoted by granting them seniority and all other benefits with retrospective effect. 4. The State has filed its reply. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that, promotion of petitioners is governed by Rule 4(1) of the Promotion Rules, 2003, in which, basis of promotion from class IV post to Class III post, is provided as ‘seniority subject to fitness’. Though, some juniors of petitioners were promoted, but they were found more fit to the petitioners. He further submitted that, the bench mark adopted by the DPC for promotion of candidates of General category was 15 marks and for Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribes category, it was 10 marks based on their ACRs. The bench mark having been fixed by the DPC was required to be attained by the respective candidates, who were being considered within the zone of consideration. Though, the petitioners were within the zone of consideration, but they did not attain the requisite bench mark for being recommended to be promoted. The minimum benchmark, which was fixed by the DPC could not have been lowered and no candidate, who did not have the said requisite benchmark, could be recommended for promotion. He further submits that, promotion of petitioners and other suitable candidates had been considered as per Rule 6(5) of the Promotion Rules, 2003, which provides that, suitability has to be assessed on the basis of ACR of employee for 5 preceding years, petitioners’ ACRs were found inferior to that of their juniors, therefore, petitioners have been deprived from promotion. Hence, it is prayed that, the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. None appears for other respondents, though served. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Respondents No. 1 to 3 /State has filed Annexure A-1, which is the order regarding formation of departmental promotion committee. When specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the State, as to whether complete documents of the DPC has been filed, he submits that the DPC had prepared only one page of note sheet and tabulation chart of eligible candidates. When specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the State, as to whether complete documents of the DPC has been filed, he submits that the DPC had prepared only one page of note sheet and tabulation chart of eligible candidates. When again specific question was posed, as to whether any note sheet or order was drawn by the DPC mentioning the fact that, on which ground the petitioners were deprived from promotion, he submits that, no such document /bench mark chart etc. has been filed as no such document has been prepared by the DPC. 8. In the instant case, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Lab Attendant in the Forensic Science Laboratory, in the year 2014/2015. The respondents convened DPC for consideration of suitability of candidates for promotion from the post of Lab Attendant (Class IV ) to Lab Assistant ( Class III). As per Annexure A-1 filed by the State, there were total 19 candidates in the zone of consideration for promotion, including petitioners and private respondents but petitioners have not been promoted and the persons junior to them have been promoted. As per Annexure A-1, the petitioners have been marked as ‘Anupyukt’on the basis of their ACRs grading for last five years. 9. Petitioners’ promotion is governed by Rule 4(1) and Rule 6(5) of the Promotion Rules, 2003, which provides that : “4. Determination of basis of promotion. (1) Promotion from Class IV to higher pay scale of Class IV, Class IV to Class III, Class III to higher pay scale of Class III, Class III to Class II, Class II to higher pay scale of Class II and Class II to Class I posts shall be made on the basis of “seniority subject to fitness”. “6. Promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness xxx xxx xxx (5) The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the public servants for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall see the record with particular reference to the ACRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service.” 10. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall see the record with particular reference to the ACRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service.” 10. From perusal of above Rules, it is quit vivid that, for promotion from Class IV to Class III posts, the basis provided is “seniority subject to fitness”. Even as per Rule 6(5) also, to assess the suitability of the employee for promotion, their service record and particular references, if any, in the Annual Confidential Report, ought to have been looked into. 11. In the instant case, as per Gradation list Annexure P-4 as on 1-4-2019, the petitioners were shown senior to the private respondents. But their seniority has not been considered and only their ACRs for last 5 years have been considered, which is contrary to the above rules governing their promotion. The criteria ‘Seniority subject to fitness’ clearly provides for promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. However, it appears that, when the case of the petitioners and private respondents was considered for promotion, DPC laid down a criteria which amounts to fixation of minimum benchmark of merit, that too, only on the basis of marking based on ACR grading de horing the seniority based on the provision of Rule 4(1) of the Promotion Rules, 2003. 12. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether while considering the petitioners and private respondents for promotion on the criteria of ‘seniority subject to fitness’, respondents were justified in laying down a minimum benchmark of merit, only on the basis of marking based on ACR grading. 13. Similar issue was considered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwari (supra) and held in para 14, 15, 16 and17 as under :- “ 14. In the service jurisprudence, known criteria for promotion are selection based purely on merit, promotion on the criteria of merit-cum-seniority, promotion based on seniority-cum-merit, promotion based on seniority-cum-fitness. Promotion is a reward and whenever promotions are made, some kind of criteria is required to be fixed. Ordinarily, while granting promotion in the lower rank of post, comparative merit criteria is not resorted to and subject to fitness, promotions are made on the basis of seniority. When promotions are made to higher posts, merit starts playing role. Promotion is a reward and whenever promotions are made, some kind of criteria is required to be fixed. Ordinarily, while granting promotion in the lower rank of post, comparative merit criteria is not resorted to and subject to fitness, promotions are made on the basis of seniority. When promotions are made to higher posts, merit starts playing role. It is in three parts - Firstly, where it is based purely on selection and seniority has no relevance. The other two criteria are merit- cum-seniority and seniority- cum-merit. In most of the public services, while in the matter of promotion to the lower rank of post, subject to fitness, seniority is made a basis, in the matter of promotion to the higher rank of post, carrying higher duties and functions, merit plays a prominent role. The well known jurisprudential concept of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit and distinction thereof was considered by the Supreme Court in its authoritative judicial pronouncements in the case of B.V. Sivaiah [ (1998) 6 SCC 720 ], the Supreme Court examined the concept of seniority-cum-merit as below— “17. On behalf of the promoted officers it was urged that for the purpose of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit, seniority means the length of service and that among officers who were appointed on the same date and have the same length of service seniority can have no bearing and promotion has to be made on a comparative assessment of merit of such officers. We are unable to agree, while applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit for the purpose of promotion what is required to be considered is inter se seniority of the employees who are eligible for consideration. Such seniority is normally determined on the basis of length of service, but as between employees appointed on the same date and having the same length of service, but as between employees appointed on the same date and having the same length of service, it is generally determined on the basis of placement in the selected list for appointment. Such determination of seniority confers certain rights and the principle of seniority-cum-merit gives effect to the such rights flowing from seniority. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of promotion the basis of seniority- cum-merit seniority has no role where the employees eligible for promotion were appointed on the same date and have the same length of service.” 15. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of promotion the basis of seniority- cum-merit seniority has no role where the employees eligible for promotion were appointed on the same date and have the same length of service.” 15. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court has been followed in subsequent decisions in the case of Hargovind Yadav v. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank [ (2006) 6 SCC 145 ], Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank [ (2010) 1 SCC 335 ], Haryana State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Jagat Ram and ors. [ (2011) 3 SCC 422 ] and Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission [(2015) 14 SCC427]. 16. The essential distinctions pointed out in the aforesaid decisions, as between criteria of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority, is while in the cases of promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, merit prevails, in considering cases of promotion applying criteria of merit- cum-seniority, a minimum benchmark of merit is prescribed and all the eligible officers who fulfill minimum benchmark of merit are considered for promotion on the basis of their inter-se seniority. Therefore, fixation of certain minimum benchmark of merit has an attribute of criteria of seniority-cum-merit because in such a case, merit does play a role. In such cases, there is no comparison on merit of two officers. For illustration, if junior and senior officers fulfill minimum eligibility criteria and minimum bench mark of merit is fixed under the rule or by the DPC, even if senior officer is more meritorious and efficient, junior officer would be preferred in the matter for promotion. But in the case of merit-cum- seniority or in the case of promotion made purely based on selection, a comparative merit exercise is required to be undertaken. In such cases, a more meritorious officer, even though junior, would march-past his senior and would get promotion. 17. From the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is clearly discerned that prescription of minimum benchmark of merit would be applicable in the matter of promotion based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. Seniority subject to fitness, on its rational, fair and logical interpretation would only mean that the officer is fit for promotion when there is nothing adverse against him. From the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is clearly discerned that prescription of minimum benchmark of merit would be applicable in the matter of promotion based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. Seniority subject to fitness, on its rational, fair and logical interpretation would only mean that the officer is fit for promotion when there is nothing adverse against him. In such cases, where integrity is not in doubt, there are no adverse entries, no departmental enquiry pending or any penalty or any other kind of adverse material, the officer has to be adjudged as fit. A distinction between fit for promotion and merit for promotion has to be underlined. Even if an officer may not achieve minimum benchmark, meaning thereby that higher ACR grading like Excellent or Very Good, yet he may be fit i.e. there is nothing adverse against him. Therefore, the scale of fitness is different from scale of merit. May be in a given case, in the necessity of particular employment, the employer may lay down particular standard of fitness with an award grade of ACR. As long as it is not done, it must be understood that there is nothing adverse against the employee and he is not required to be possessed of any minimum standard of merit. In the present case, promotions are based on the rules framed by the Governor in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which has statutory force. The historic development of the rule applicable in the present case has been noticed by this Court that earlier, the criteria of promotion was based on merit and later on, rule was relaxed in so far as promotion from Class III to Class II post is concerned, while retaining the requirement of merit as a criteria for promotion in the matter of promotion from Class II to Class I post. In this background, the interpretation of rule and criteria of promotion on seniority-cum-fitness should only be understood in the sense that the employee should be promoted on the basis of seniority provided that there is nothing adverse against him like doubtful integrity, departmental enquiry, criminal case, penalty, deleterious material etc.” 14. In this background, the interpretation of rule and criteria of promotion on seniority-cum-fitness should only be understood in the sense that the employee should be promoted on the basis of seniority provided that there is nothing adverse against him like doubtful integrity, departmental enquiry, criminal case, penalty, deleterious material etc.” 14. In the instant case, as per contention of learned counsel for the State, the DPC fixed certain benchmark for promotion on the basis of marking based on ACRs of last 5 years, meaning thereby, the criteria which they adopted was merit-cum-seniority. Said procedure adopted by the DPC dehors the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Promotion Rules, 2003. Further, on the applications submitted by the petitioners for review of promotion order dated 13-3-2020, a three members committee was constituted by the Director of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The three members Committee examined the issue and submitted report on 11-1-2022 to the Director with the finding, which is reproduced as under :- 15. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of aforecited judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court and coordinate bench of this Court in above referred case and further considering the report submitted by the three members committee vide their report dated 11-1-2022, the respondent authorities were not justified in declining the petitioners from promotion only on the basis of marking based on ACR grading, in the DPC held on 13-3-2020, as the same is against the provision of Rule 4(1) and Rule 6(5) of the Promotion Rules, 2003. 16. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, Annexure P-1 dated 13-3-2020 wherein petitioners have been found Anupyukt and Annexure P-2 dated 18-3-2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 to the extent of not granting promotion to the petitioners, are set aside / quashed. Since the petitioners have been promoted vide order dated 11-3-2024, but they have been illegally deprived from promotion in the DPC held on 13-3-2020, therefore, respondent authority/state is directed to hold review DPC as on 13-3-2020 to re-consider the case of petitioners’ promotion in the light of observations made in this order, by applying the criteria of ‘seniority subject to fitness’ strictly. If upon consideration in this manner, the petitioners are found fit subject to all other considerations like integrity, passing of any penalty order, departmental enquiry or any criminal case, the petitioners shall be entitled to promotion as ‘Lab Assistant’ from the same date their juniors i.e. private respondents were promoted as Lab Assistant with all consequential benefits maintaining inter-se seniority as on 13-3- 2020. Aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated as above. 17. Writ petition is allowed. No orders as to cost(s). 18. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed.