AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) ALL the above three writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) IN all the three writ petitions the circular dated 2.2.2001, final selection list for promotion of the candidates from Scale I to Scale II dated 9.10.2001 and the letter dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Giridih rejecting the representation of the petitioners are under challenge and have been annexed as Annexures 2, 4 and 8, respectively in all the three writ petitions. The facts of W.P.(S) 1284 of 2002 is that the petitioner presently holding post of Manager (Personnel) in Scale I Grade in Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The case of the petitioner is that on 1.1.1996 a seniority list of the officers working in the . Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank was published under the signature of the Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank in which the name of the petitioner 'sfigure at Serial No. 7. On 21.6.2001 a circular as contained in Annexure 3 was issued wherein it was mentioned that it was decided to initiate promotion process for the officers of the Bank from Scale I to Scale II, In terms of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 and therefore, applications were invited from eligible officers in the prescribed format. Pursuant to the said circular dated 21.6.2001, the petitioner applied for his promotion from Scale 1 to Scale II. Firstly, a written test was conducted and thereafter interview was held and then the list of the selected candidates for promotion from Scale 1 to Scale II as contained in Annexure 4 dated 19.10.2001 was published. In the said list of the selected candidates for promotion, the name of the petitioner is not there whereas the respondents No. 3 to 15, who were juniors to the petitioner, were selected for promotion.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the criteria for promotion from Scale I to Scale II was "seniority -cum -merit" but the respondent -Bank adopted the criteria for promotion on the basis of the merit only. It Is said that only on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination and interview, the selection list as contained in Annexure 4 was published without making any provision or fixing any mark for seniority and therefore, the entire list as contained in Annexure 4 was illegal being violative of criteria laid down or fixed for promotion. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent -Bank by issue of Circular dated 2.2.2001 has wrongly and illegally allotted and fixed 60 marks for written test, 20 marks for interview and 20 marks for performance/appraisal reports of last five years. It has also wrongly laid down the criteria that only those candidates who secured 40% marks in the written test will be called for interview. According to the petitioner, the procedure adopted by the respondent -bank was completely contrary to the criteria fixed for the said promotion on the basis of "seniority -cum -merit". The petitioner and others moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5820 of 2001 challenging the action of the respondent - Bank. This Court vide order dated 3.12.2001 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition disposed of the said writ petition with following directions : "In my opinion, the petitioner should pursue their representation before the respondent No. 2 who is supposed to consider and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order stating as to why the petitioner 'scase either have not been considered or they were not found fit for promotion. If any such representation is pending before the respondent No. 2 he shall consider and dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty to file individual representation in addition to the representation which Is pending before the concerned respondents. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of." ;