AJAY RASTOGI,CJ. - (1.) The petitioner is a judicial officer and a member of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003, joined service in Tripura Judicial Service Grade-III on 30th December, 2003. The judicial officer in Grade-III becomes eligible for promotion to Grade-II having five years of service to his credit on the basis of the criteria indicated in Schedule-C appended to Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2003). Schedule-C relevant for the purpose lays down the general criteria for promotion and the criteria from Grade-III to Grade-II in particular to which we are presently concerned is reproduced hereunder: "Schedule-C General Criteria for promotion: (a) Considering the number of vacancies to be filled up, the High Court. Court shall assess the Judgments/ACRs of the officers, who are within the zone of consideration, the ratio being 1:3. (b) The suitability and overall performance of the officers including disposal of cases and the remarks of the concerned Portfolio Judge shall be considered. (c) In case any Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry is pending against an officer, his/her promotion may be considered and the decision be kept in a sealed cover, to be opened on conclusion of the Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry. (d) An officer against whom there is adverse entry regarding his character and integrity will be not eligible for promotion during the period of such entry, Provided that if he improves his position and gets required benchmarks during subsequent period of eligibility, his case may again be considered for promotion. Other Criteria for Promotion: following shall be other consideration for promotion from one grade to another: From Grade-III to Grade-II: (i) Seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability. (ii) ACR's of last five years are to be considered an officers having minimum "Two Good" Grading in ACR's will be considered provided their integrity and character is beyond doubt during the period of five years under consideration." 2. According to the scheme of Rules, 2003, the promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability along with the performance based on the preceding five years of the service record of the officer including Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACR). At the same time, for overall suitability there are certain broad guidelines be taken note of by the committee and for adjudging overall suitability the committee constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice laid down the guidelines duly approved by the Full Court including the disposal of cases and remarks of the concerned Portfolio Judge to supplement the overall suitability of an officer. 3. The process of selection of officers for promotion was initiated from Grade-III to Grade-II against 11 vacancies determined for the year 2010 (10 existing vacancies and 1 anticipated vacancy in Grade-II judicial officer). The committee constituted for the purpose having regard to the Rules, 2003 relating to the criteria for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability and ACR's of last preceding five years indicating character and quality of judgments, considered appropriate to evaluate the performance/suitability of the officers with objectivity and transparent mechanism on a scale of 150 marks and keeping the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, subject to overall suitability it was desired to uphold excellence in performance of the feeder post resolved to secure at least 75 marks as the benchmark (i.e. 50%) to adjudge the overall suitability, to hold the post in Gr.II. 4. The record reveals that the committee constituted by the High Court accordingly applied the above norms and awarded the marks as quoted below to 18 Grade-III officers who came within the zone of consideration and with their overall analysis with regard to the seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability, recommended 8 officers including respondent No. 4 who is a member of Scheduled Tribes and junior to the petitioner in Grade-III service, having qualified the benchmark of 75 the committee recommended the name of the respondent No.4 against the reserved vacancy of S.T although the petitioner was senior to him but since failed to qualify the benchmark of 75, was not recommended for promotion to Gr.II. At the same time, one officer Smt. Shankari Das was kept in sealed cover as the departmental proceedings at the given point of time was pending and the recommendation of the committee was thereafter placed before the Full Court meeting on 16th December, 2010 and the Full Court vide resolution No. 4 dt. 16.12.2010 accepted the recommendations of the committee and promoted the judicial officers in Grade-II, as recommended by the committee vide order dt. 22.12.2010 (Annexure-P/2) including the respondent No.4. 5. It may be further added that all the officers other than the respondent No. 4 were senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Grade-III and the respondent No. 4 although was junior to the petitioner in the S.T. category but the respondent marched over the petitioner because of his overall suitability and qualify the benchmark of 75 which was fixed by the committee and in consequence thereof, the respondent No. 4 had superseded the petitioner on being promoted to Grade-II under order dt. 22nd December, 2010. 6. Thereafter, further promotions were made from Grade-III to Grade-II against the vacancies determined for the year 2011 by the committee constituted for the purpose its meeting held on 9th August, 2011 based on the self same criteria of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability and after adjudging suitability of the officers in Grade-III recommended names of 7(seven) judicial officers including the recommendation of Smt. Shankari Das who remained in sealed cover to avoid the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings pending against her. 7. Indisputedly, all the officers who were recommended for promotion against the vacancy of the year 2011 from Grade-III to Grade-II to the Tripura Judicial Service all were senior to the petitioner. The recommendation of the committee was approved by the Full Court in its meeting dt. 20th August, 2011 and accordingly, promotions were made vide order dt. 30th August, 2011 of 6(six) judicial officers and record reveals that later the disciplinary proceedings pending against the officer Smt. Shankari Das pursuant to which her case was kept in sealed cover came to an end and as she had qualified the benchmark and secured 85 marks accordingly was promoted to Grade-II. 8. In the overall spectrum the only officer who was junior to the petitioner and recommended for promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II was against the reserved vacancy of S.T. was the respondent No. 4 who qualify with the benchmark of 75 marks and the petitioner although was senior to him but failed to qualify the benchmark, could not be recommended for promotion to Gr. II. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the scheme of Rules, 2003 seniority-cum-merit is the criteria for promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II subject to the overall suitability and there is no minimum benchmark/qualifying marks fixed by the rule making authority under the scheme of Rules, 2003. In the given circumstances, the committee has exceeded in its jurisdiction in prescribing the cut-off marks in evaluating the overall suitability based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and the very procedure followed by the respondents in evaluating the overall suitability of the officers for promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II against the vacancy of the year 2010, was arbitrary and exceeding to its define jurisdiction and a complete departure and being violative of Rules, 2003, at least the respondent No. 4 with whom the petitioner had a lis needs to be interfered by this Court. 10. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that to fix the cut-off marks in the matter of promotion of the officers of reserved category is a complete deviation of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts Act, 1991) being a special Act created to protect the rights of the members of the S.C./S.T. which may have overriding effect over the Rules, 2003, at least in making promotions of the members of S.C./S.T. in the various services of the State including the Judicial Service Rules, 2003 have to be given precedence and promoting the respondent No. 4 in superseding the right of the petitioner who is senior to him is in violation of the mandate of the Act, 1991. 11. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the vacancies determined for the year 2010, the committee in its wisdom considered appropriate to put a benchmarks of 75 marks (i.e. 50%) for all the members who fall in the zone of consideration for promotion in Grade-III, at the same time, there was no benchmark fixed against the vacancy determined for the year 2011 and all the candidates who were declared suitable based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit subject to suitability were promoted against the vacancy determined for the year 2011 and no different standards could be prescribed by the respondents in evaluating the overall suitability of the officers for the year 2010 and 2011 respectively and in the given circumstances, at least the petitioner has been deprived of his right of fair consideration for promotion to Grade-II against the vacancy determined in the year 2010 and that needs to be reviewed and interfered by this Court and in support of submission counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in B. V. Sivaiah and Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 23028 of 2013, Vimal Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 27.08.2018. 12. Counsel further submits that grading of the petitioner and grade of the respondent No. 4 is almost the same of the preceding five years of ACR (2005-2009) under consideration, but in the evaluation sheet, the petitioner has been awarded 45 marks and the respondent No. 4 secured 50 marks and this according to him is an apparent error which has been committed by the committee in awarding marks to the petitioner vis-a-vis that of the respondent No. 4 in the head of ACR's and at least this needs to be reviewed and reconsidered by the committee in adjudging overall suitability of the petitioner vis-a-vis that of the respondent No. 4 for promotion against the vacancy determined for the year 2010. 13. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it has been averred that the promotions were made after determination of vacancies for the year 2010 and 2011 respectively and the judicial officers who fall in the zone of consideration and member of the Judicial Service Rules, 2003 those who were found to be suitable on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability were recommended for promotion vide orders dt. 22nd December, 2010 and 30th August, 2011 (Annexure-P/2 and P/8) respectively and the officers who qualify with the benchmark of 75 marks out of 150 which is 50% were held suitable and recommended for promotion based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability and the recommendation of the committee was approved by the Full Court and further submits that seniority in absolute term would not be considered as the basis for promotion and once the promotions are being made strictly in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2003, there appears no error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents, needs no interference by this Court. 14. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the criteria for promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II is the seniority-cum-merit with overall suitability and apart from the general criteria for promotion to adjudge overall suitability, a criteria can be supplemented in laying down the procedure having nexus and while promotions were made against the vacancy year 2010 a committee introduced a fair and transparent procedure in awarding the marks for judgments and ACR's of the officers of the preceding five years and considered appropriate that at least for adjudging overall suitability one must cross the benchmark of 50% and that has been rationally and indiscriminately followed for all the officers falling in the zone of consideration while being recommended for promotion against the vacancy year 2010 and as the petitioner failed to qualify with the benchmark of 75 marks in the overall evaluation of marks was considered unsuitable for promotion and according to the respondent there appears no error in the decision making process committed by the respondents which calls for any interference and the criteria which was followed by the committee was approved by the Full Court. 15. Counsel further submits that no person junior to the petitioner was promoted against the vacancy year 2011 and at least he cannot have any grievance about the procedure being followed in making promotions while adjudging overall suitability of the officers against the vacancy year 2011 and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Mysore and Ors. Vs. Syed Mahmood and Ors., reported in 1968 AIR (SC) 1113 and (2013) 4 SCC 376. 16. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on records. 17. The indisputed facts on record are that the petitioner is member of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 and promotions are made from Grade-III to Grade-II of the officers who have at least minimum five years of service to his credit to be selected by the High Court on the basis of the criteria indicated in Schedule-C for promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II on seniority-cum-merit subject to the overall suitability along with ACR's of the last preceding five years of the year of vacancy provided their integrity and character is beyond doubt during the period of five years under consideration. 18. It may be noticed that the criteria for promotion is not merely a seniority-cum-merit but subject to overall suitability and for adjudging overall suitability of an officer, the judgments and judicial work of the officers apart from his overall performance including ACR's play a pivotal role. What are the touchstone and parameters which has to be considered while the promotions are being made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit has been considered by the Apex Court in B. V. Sivaiah and Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 and observations have been made in Para-18, the relevant extract is quoted ad-infra: "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 of merit of the employee who is eligible for promotion. 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 a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit." 19. This case has been further relied upon by the Apex Court in Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and Ors. Vs. Jagat Ram and Anr., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 422 wherein the principles emerges that in the matters of seniority-cum-merit apart from seniority there shall be a minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, although the comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made, even in the case (1998) 6 SCC 720, the Apex Court after laying down the conclusion to be followed in promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in para-18 of which reference has been made, considered the cases of different Rural Banks on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, considered the procedure followed in the case of Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank in para-37 of the judgment where 50 marks out of 100 marks was prescribed as the minimum qualified marks to be selected for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and held that if the minimum standard has been prescribed for assessing merit for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, it has to be given its due weightage. For purpose of reference, the relevant extract is quoted hereunder: "37. During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has placed before us the relevant documents relating to the impugned selection and promotion. On a perusal of the said documents we find that 50 marks out of the total of 100 marks were prescribed as the minimum qualifying marks for interview and only those who had obtained the qualifying marks in interview were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. It was, therefore, a case where a minimum standard was prescribed for assessing the merit of the candidates and those who fulfilled the said minimum standard were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the selection has not been made in accordance with the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit'. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal has to be allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated February 7, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court has to be set aside and the promotion of the appellant on the post of Area/Senior Manager under order dated April 8, 1993 has to be affirmed." 20. In the instant case, under the scheme of Rules, 2003, promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II are to be made on the seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability. The committee after determination of vacancies of the year 2010 to evaluate over all suitability/performance of the officers with objectivity and transparency and taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports of the preceding last five years including integrity and character of the officer and quality of judgments, decided to assess the judgments on a scale of 50 to ascribe objectivity to the assessment, in the following breakup: (i) Presentation-5 marks. (ii) Language-5 marks. (iii) Analysis of factual aspects -10 marks. (iv) Analysis of legal aspects-15 marks and (v) Reasoning and conclusion- 15 marks, total-50 marks. The committee further keeping in view the same analogy allotted the following marks for different categories in the ACR's such as: (i) Poor-0 marks. (ii) Average-5 marks. (iii) Good-10 marks. (iv) Very good- 15 marks and (v) Outstanding-20 marks. 21. As the ACR's of five years under the aforesaid rules, would have to be considered to assess on a scale of 100(20X5) and the committee assessed the candidates for the purpose of promotion on the scale of 150 marks. The committee further having regard to the criteria of seniority-cum-merit subject of overall suitability and to have the desired excellence in performance on the promotional post fixed the benchmark of 75 marks (50%) to adjudge the overall suitability, failing which the candidates would not be considered suitable for promotion to Gr. II. 22. The committee accordingly, applying the above norms awarded the marks to 18 Grade-III officers who came in the zone of consideration and those who qualify with the standards in evaluation on the scale of 150 marks and qualify with the benchmark of 50% i.e. 75 marks, were recommended for promotion including the respondent No. 4 who is although junior to the petitioner being a member of S.T. category in Grade-III service, for the reason that he qualified the benchmark fixed by the committee. At the same time the petitioner was not recommended being failed to secure the benchmark of 75 marks. For purpose of reference the relevant part of the extract in the overall evaluation assessed by the committee of the petitioner vis-a-vis that of respondent No. 4 regarding the ACR and judgments of preceding five years is reproduced hereunder: 23. The procedure adopted by the respondents was indeed fair and transparent to evaluate the overall suitability of the officers on the scale of 150 marks with the desired excellence in performance on the promotional post who qualify with benchmark of 75 marks i.e. 50% in overall fitness of the candidates to hold the officer suitable for promotion to Grade-II appears to be reasonable and having a nexus required for evaluating the overall suitability of the officer for promotion to Grade-II and the procedure adopted by the respondents is certainly supplementing the criteria of promotion based on seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability being in conformity with the mandate of the Rules, 2003 needs no interference of this Court. 24. So far the promotion made against the vacancy of the year 2011 is concerned, indisputedly no person junior to the petitioner was recommended for promotion, at least he has no locus to question the procedure followed by the respondents in recommending the names for promotion against the vacancy of the year 2011. 25. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no benchmark prescribed under the scheme of Rules, 2003 in adjudging overall suitability and this appears to be a departure from the Rules, 2003 is without substance for the reason that under the scheme of Rule, 2003 promotions are to be made from Grade-III to Grade-II on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to the overall suitability and while adjudging overall suitability, if the fair and transparent criteria has been adopted by the respondents of which a detail reference has been made, it certainly have a direct nexus in evaluating the overall suitability of the officer with the minimum benchmark of 50% and that supplement the scheme of rules for adjudging the suitability for promotion to Grade-II and this Court finds no error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents and the criteria which has been adopted by the respondents is permissible in the eye of law. 26. Further submission the counsel for the petitioner that while the promotions were made against the vacancy year of 2010, there was a minimum benchmark of 50%, but at the same time in the year 2011 there was no benchmark fixed by the respondents, is, without substance for the reason that the petitioner was considered against the reserved vacancy of S.T. of the year 2010 and the criteria was adopted by the respondents in adjudging the overall suitability with a benchmark of 50% to be achieved by the officer to be promoted to Grade-II at the same time no officer junior to the petitioner was promoted against the year of vacancy 2011 and at least no grievance could be raised by the petitioner in reference to the criteria which the respondents have adopted in adjudging the overall suitability of the officer for promotion for the year 2011. 27. Submission of the counsel that minimum benchmark in adjudging the overall suitability is a complete departure from Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts Act, 1991) suffice it to say that the Act 1991 only prescribe the reservation for various posts in the Govt. of the members of S.C./S.T. with the broad guidelines to be kept in view to provide indulgence/representation to the members of S.C./S.T. while being considered for appointment/promotion, but being a member of the Tripura Judicial Service Rule, 2003 the vacancies which are reserved for the members of S.C./S.T. has to be filled in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the parent judicial service Rules, 2003 of which petitioner is the member and since promotions have been made in accordance with the criteria of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability with the benchmark of 50% to qualify for adjudging the overall suitability for promotion to Grade-II under Rules, 2003 which has been rigidly followed by the respondents after adopting a fair and transparent procedure, there is no departure as being claimed by the petitioner of the Act, 1991. 28. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the grading of ACR of the petitioner and that of the respondent No. 4 of the preceding five years under consideration i.e. 2005 to 2009 are of the same grade but the marks which has been awarded have a variation is of no substance for the reason that in the first instance there is no material placed by the petitioner before the Court to substantiate the submission made, at the same time, even if what being contended if taken at the face value and the petitioner also considered of securing 50 marks in ACR, still he fails to qualify the benchmark of 75 marks i.e. 50% to hold his suitability for promotion to Grade-II and what being contended may not serve any purpose and of no assistance. To further substantiate, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 has been excessively awarded or awarded marks under the head of ACR is not as per the grading of the preceding five years, in absence thereof what being contended by the petitioner, even if taken at the face value is not going to hold him to qualify with the benchmark of 75 marks i.e. 50% in adjudging his suitability for promotion to Grade-II. 29. Counsel further submits that the vacancies are not being adequately determined in the year 2011, is completely vague having no material on record, in support thereof, needs outright rejection and at the same time, it can be further observed that when no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted against the vacancy of the year 2011, at least no grievance could be raised in reference to the procedure being followed by the respondents. 30. The judgment on which learned counsel placed reliance of Punjab and Haryana High Court, is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where the promotions were made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the officers who are members of the Haryana Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and while examining the criteria of merit-cum-seniority, the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana has examined the procedure adopted by the respondents in making promotions whereas in the present case the promotions are made from Grade-III to Grade-II on the basis of seniority-cum-merit with overall suitability, have no semblance with the criteria of merit-cum-seniority which has been examined by the Punjab and Haryana in the judgment referred to above, be of no assistance. Consequently, in our considered opinion, the writ petition is wholly devoid of merit, stands dismissed. No costs. ______;