( 1 ) THE appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the High Court of Delhi some time in April, 1985. On May 12,1992 she was appointed as Junior Stenographer in adhoc capacity. Thereafter on August 17, 1994 she was appointed as temporary Junior Stenographer on the establishment of this Court. On August 16,1997 the respondents conducted a test for filling up the posts of Senior Stenographer against promotion quota. The appellant appeared in the test but was not selected. On the basis of this test, one Ram Singh, Junior Stenographer was promoted. By means of a circular, being Circular No. 311 dated 14. 10. 1998, the Deputy Registrar (Establishment) invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up vacant posts of Senior Stenographers against 50% promotion quota. The candidates, as on earlier occasion, were required to take the test. Pursuant to the Circular, the appellant applied and appeared in the test, but she was again not selected. Thereafter on March 22,1999 the appellant filed a representation to the first respondent stating that for the 50% of the posts of Senior Stenographers which were to be filed on the basis of "seniority-cum-suitability" (for short the rule ), no test could have been held as it defeated the very purpose of the rule. She requested that she be considered for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer against promotion quota from the same date from which Ram Singh was appointed The representation of the appellant was turned down on May 20,1999. It appears that some of the Junior Stenographers made a joint representation seeking their promotion to the posts of Senior Stenographers. In response to the joint representation, they were informed vide Memo No. 12041 that one more opportunity was being given to them to appear in the test scheduled to be held on July, 1999. The appellant availed of the fresh opportunity and appeared in the test but she was not able to clear the same and as a consequence thereof, was not promoted as Senior Stenographer. This led to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant. Basically the appellant is aggrieved of the decision of the Selection Committee to hold the test and interview for judging the suitability of the candidates for considering them to the post of Senior Stenographers against promotion quota. The writ petition as already noticed, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is senior-most Junior Stenographer and was the most suitable candidate for being promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer. It was pointed out that the appellant has worked with various officers and Judges to their complete satisfaction and while considering the question of her promotion, only her ACRs ought to have been considered. According to the learned Counsel, the promotion is required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability criteria which does not admit of holding of a test to determine suitability. It was also canvassed that the respondents were not authorised to prescribe the test outside the rule. The action of the respondents in prescribing the test was arbitrary and without jurisdiction, besides being ultra-vires the rule.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in order to judge the suitability of the candidates, the High Court has been I consistently holding the test to determine the suitability of the departmental candidates for promotion to the posts of Senior Stenographers. It was also pointed out that the Departmental Promotion Committee/selection Committee constituted in the year 1989 to fill up the posts of Senior Stenographers against promotion quota laid down the guidelines for judging the suitability of candidates for promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committ