HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI. MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.942 OF 2011 15TH November, 2011. Between: SRI.VENKATESWARA GRAMEENA BANK, CHITTOOR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANTS AND SRI.K.NARASIMHA RAO .. RESPONDENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI. MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.942 OF 2011 O R D E R: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The appellant-Bank is aggrieved by an order dated 18-04-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19753 of 1999. 2. The appellant-Bank had made certain promotions in 1998 which was set aside pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court in B.V. Sivaiah & Ors v. K. Addankin Babu & Ors[1]. 3. Thereafter, the appellant-Bank came out with a fresh promotion policy by a circular dated 13.04.1999. The present appeal concern this new promotion policy. 4. While implementing the new promotion policy, the respondent who had earlier been selected for promotion, was now denied his promotion. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a writ petition challenging the new promotion policy. 5. In terms of the earlier policy, promotions to the Junior Management Grade Scale-II provided for award of marks as follows: Seniority 60 points (10 points for every completed year of service over and above the minimum service of 8 years as on 31.03.1997 subject to a maximum of 60 points). Performance 20 points Interview 20 points Under the new promotion policy 50 marks were allotted for interview and 50 marks were allotted for performance appraisal. 6. The respondent says, and this was not disbelieved by the learned single Judge, that he came to know about the new promotion policy only on the date of the interview. Thereafter, the respondent protested against the new promotion policy by addressing the Chairman of the appellant-Bank and it was submitted that in view of this complaint the Chairman of the appellant- Bank was biased against the respondent. Insofar as the second aspect of the matter is concerned we are not going into the question of bias at all because the learned single Judge also did not do so. 7. On the merits of the policy, the learned single Judge found that the marks awarded for the interview were far too high and also the parameters for evaluating the performance were not clearly specified. It was held by the learned single Judge that although promotions were required to be made on seniority cum merit, the award of 50 marks for interview and 50 marks for performance appraisal provided an arbitrary basis for making promotions and that seniority cum merit was given a go-bye. 8. Taking these factors into consideration as well as the fact that no parameters had been laid down for the award of marks the learned single Judge has set aside the new promotion policy and gave a declaration to that effect. It was further directed by the learned single Judge that the appellant- Bank should consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the Junior Management Scale Grade-II with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits, subject to his fulfilling the criterion of the seniority-cum-merit principle. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has raised two contentions before us. The first contention is that the persons who were promoted were not made parties to the writ petition and on that ground alone the order under appeal ought to be set aside. 10. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention. The challenge as made by the respondent/writ petitioner was generic and to the new promotion policy of the appellant-Bank. Under these circumstances there was no necessity for him to implead the beneficiaries of the new promotion policy. 11. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Bank is that having participated in the interview process, the respondent cannot be allowed to challenge the new promotion policy. 12. As we have noted above, the learned single Judge has in a sense accepted the averment of the respondent/writ petitioner to the effect that he came to know about the new promotion policy in terms of the circular dated 13.04.1999 only on the date of the interview. Since this is so, it cannot be said that the respondent participated in the interview knowing fully well the contents of the new promotion policy. 13. Nevertheless, we have gone through the counter affidavit as well as through the new promotion policy with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant-Bank. Having gone through the counter affidavit, we find that there is absolutely no averment to the effect that the new promotion policy was circulated or made known to the respondent/ writ petitioner. 14. There is, obviously, nothing in the circular dated 13.04.1999 fixing a date for interview, which may, if circulated to all the candidates invited for the interview would ensure their knowledge of the new promotion policy. This appears to be a case where the new promotion policy was prepared but was not given adequate circulation or was in any case not made known to the respondent/writ petitioner. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the respondent/ writ petitioner was aware of the new promotion policy and therefore was disentitled from or estopped from challenging it. 15. Since we do not find any substance in the two contentions of the appellant-Bank we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 16. Dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) 15TH November, 2011. ( GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) Nagesh Babu HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI. MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.942 OF 2011 O R D E R: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) 15TH November, 2011. tnb [1] AIR 1998 SC 2565