- (1.) The petitioners have challenged in this petition the promotions of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to the posts of MMGS-IV. The primary ground taken that originally only six posts had been notified to be filled up by the impugned selection process and six persons were duly promoted. Thereafter many officers filed appeals. Ultimately the appeals of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were accepted and they were promoted. Grievance is that while promoting them, none of the earlier candidates were reverted and, therefore, as against six vacancies 11 promotions were made. It is further stated that in the following year, those surplus posts were taken out of the promotion quota. In these circumstances, the following prayer is made: II. to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the selection and appointment of Respondents 4 to 8 issued vide Memo. No. PER/1 dated 1.4.99 (P-5) retrospectively w.e.f. 9.9.98 the date of promotion of other promotees against non-existent/anticipated vacancies for which selection process had not yet been initiated having been posted arbitrarily in colourable exercise of authority contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
(2.) Thereafter it has been brought out for the subsequent year, out of the 10 fresh posts created, only 5 were filled up.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, the only reason given for filling up more posts than those notified is that this has been the practice in the bank from the very beginning.;