DWIVEDI, J. : By our order dated July 22, 1970 we dismissed this appeal and stated that reasons will follow shortly. We are now setting forth our reasons.

2. The appellant and the respondents are members of the High Court staff. All of them belong to the class of Upper Division Assistants. At present the appellant holds the post of the Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Department (Records). He was recently promoted to this post by an order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

3. The respondents filed a writ petition praying for the quashing of this order.

4. Promotion to the post of the Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Department, is regulated by Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1946. Rule 9 provides that promotion shall be made "by selection, irrespective of seniority."

5. The respondents allege that the appellant was promoted merely by virtue of his being senior in the class of Upper Division Assistants. According to them his promotion is in breach of R. 9.

6. The learned single Judge, who heard the petition, accepted the contention of the respondents and quashed the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice promoting the appellant to the post of the Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Department.

7. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal.

8. "Selection, irrespective of seniority" in Rule 9 necessarily implies that a person promoted should be chosen out of a number of eligible candidates for the post to which he has been promoted. Selection should be made obviously on a comparison of merit of the eligible candidates. The order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, however, shows that this procedure, which is implicit in Rule 9, was not followed. The note put up by the Additional Registrar in respect of the promotion of the appellant contains the following remarks :

"There is a vacancy in the post of Assistant Superintendent consequent on the transfer of Sri K. N. Srivastava to Lucknow. This is a selection post. Both seniority and merit have to be taken into consideration in making the appointment. According to the latest orders of Hon'ble C. J. Sri Mahesh Prasad Srivastava is the senior most Upper Division Assistant entitled to this promotion. He is a graduate and has a good record of service."

The Registrar endorsed the proposal of promotion of the appellant. Hon'ble the Chief Justice made a one word Order "approved".

9. During the hearing of arguments before the learned single Judge a statement was made on behalf of Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the Standing Counsel. The statement is recorded in the order-sheet dated February 13, 1970. Standing Counsel stated that "as far as the Chief Justice can recollect the only material placed before him, when he passed the orders on 23-4-1969 and 25-4-1969 set forth in annexures R. I and R. 2 to the rejoinder affidavit (filed in reply to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4), was the report and recommendations of the Additional Registrar set forth in those annexures and no character rolls were shown to him."

From the above facts it will appear conclusively that, firstly, greater emphasis was laid on seniority rather than on merit and, secondly, that the merit of Mahesh Prasad Srivastava has not been compared with the merit of any other Upper Division Assistant who is eligible for promotion to the post of the Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Department. Accordingly we agree with the learned Judge that the appellant has not been promoted by "selection, irrespective of seniority", as contemplated by Rule 9.

10. Counsel for the appellant has submitted an objection in the nature of a preliminary objection to the writ petition. The objection was raised also before the learned Single Judge but was not accepted. The objection is that no writ, order or direction can issue to Hon'ble the Chief Justice by any Judge of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The basis of the argu