Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner after having been selected, on some alleged ground, his appointment was withheld and the selection was cancelled. The petitioner had challenged the same in a writ petition, being O.J.C. No. 1932 of 1995 before the High Court of Judicature of Orissa at Cuttack, which was disposed of by judgment dated 12th February, 1996 by the Division Bench. In the said judgment the cancellation of die petitioner's selection was quashed and the respondents were directed to take immediate follow up action for appointment of the petitioner as Probationary Officers in the State Bank of India within two months from the date of communication of the said order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer by letter dated 12th June, 1996 which is Annexure 'P-3' to this writ petition. The said appointment order contained in Clause 2(e) as condition which is quoted below: "Your inter se seniority as an Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I vis-a-vis Officers recruited in the same batch will be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to you as per merit."
(2.) Relying on this clause, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the inter se seniority was admitted at the time of appointment, therefore, the petitioner's appointment should be reckoned from the date on which his batchmates were appointed, namely, prior to 1st November, 1994 and should be given all the benefits available for promotion including opportunity to sit for the selection for promotion through examination which has since been denied to the petitioner. The petitioner had made representation for such opportunity. By an order dated 8th November, 2001 contained in Annexure 'P-7' to this writ petition, the same was declined on the ground that the petitioner had joined the Bank on 12th July, 1996 and his eligibility will mature on 1st November, 2002. This order has been challenged on the ground that if inter se seniority as contemplated in Clause 2(e) of the appointment letter is accepted, in that event he had also become eligible on 1st November, 2000. Therefore, he should be given opportunity to sit for the examination. The fact remains that the examination is already held.
(3.) Mr. Subrata Ray, learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank on the other hand contends that according to the policy of promotion declared on 23rd June, 2001 the petitioner cannot sit for the present examination since the only Officers in JMGS-I appointed/promoted before 1st November, 1999 were eligible under the said policy. A copy of the said policy since produced is taken on record. He also relied on a letter dated 22nd February, 1991 declaring such policy contained in Clause 2.3(it) wherein it was declared that unless the Officer in JMS Scale-I puts in minimum of six years service including probation period he would not be eligible for promotion. A copy of this letter is also taken on record.;