Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) The writ petitioners along with the private respondents were considered for promotion by the respondent bank on the basis of "Seniority-cum-Assessment of comparative merit". The writ petitioners became unsuccessful whereas the private respondents have been given promotion. Their Promotion have been directed to continue subject to the result of this writ petition by an interim order passed by this Court on 21st September, 1998. By a circular dated 31st March, 1998 the bank decided to give promotion on the basis of "Seniority-cum- Merit' and fixed a cut off date as on 30th June, 1997 for filling up 27 vacancies in MMG Scale-11. The allotment of marks as per the said circular was as follows: "(i) Seniority--50. 3 marks for each completed year of service subject of maximum of 50 marks. For any period less than one year proportionate marks on monthly basis to the nearest decimal. Any period in excess of 15 days in the month will constitute a completed month for the purpose of calculation. In case of two or more officers secured full marks under seniority, the senior most officer (in terms of actual length of service reckoned from the date of joining) will get priority in the final selection list provided all such officers also simultaneously secured minimum qualifying marks for performance appraisal. (ii) Performance--25 Average marks obtained in the proceeding three years performance appraisal reports. (iii) Interview--25 for assessment of merit covering the areas of performance interview the qualifying marks will be 20".
(2.) On the basis of the said selection the private respondents has been given promotion. The writ petitioners challenged the process as according to them the process was contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court.
(3.) Mr. Subrata Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the bank in his usual fairness admitted that the guideline laid down by the Apex Court was not followed by the bank in giving the subject promotions. He further submitted that when the selection process was on at that point of time the guideline was not made available to the bank and as such the bank could not apply the said decisions. He further submitted that the basis of such promotion was based on the understanding of the bank of "Seniority-cum- Merit". According to Mr. Roy after the Apex Court judgments the policy of the bank had been changed and there would be no difficulty in future. Mr. Roy further submitted that the petitioners availed the opportunity granted to them for promotion, being unsuccessful they were not entitled to challenge the selection process.;