IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1071 of 2004 UDAY SHANKAR DEY, Son of Sri Sukumar Dey, resident of Flat No.304, Prabhat Apartment Manna Singh Lane, North S.K. Puri, Patna, P.S. - Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna-8000013, presently posted as Clerk in Frazer Road, Patna Branch of Syndicate Bank at Patna and District- Patna. …..Appellant. Versus 1. SYNDICATE BANK, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Syndicate Bank, Head Office at Manipal. 2. General Manager (Personnel), Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal. 3. Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Sheohar Sadan, 2nd Floor, Opp. A.I.R. Fraser Road, patna-800001. 4. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Patna Branch, Fraser Road, Sheohar Sadan, 1st Floor, Opp. A.I.R. Fraser Road, Patna- 800001. .. Respondents. ----------- 08- 23.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.3024 of 2003, and is aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2004, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, serving the respondent Syndicate Bank as a Clerk. The Bank issued a policy decision for promotion to the next higher post of officers’ cadre in JMGS-1 as a one-time promotion. The petitioner alleged a number of anomalies 2 in the policy decision which were considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held that the policy decision has been framed to get rid of certain problems in the working of the Bank and, therefore, one-time measure by way of policy decision has been taken. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the Court should normally really desist from interference with such a policy decision which is by way of remedial measures, otherwise the institution would have been in difficulty to run it properly. So long such a policy decision applies uniformly individual grievances will have to give way to larger public interest. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has noticed that there were 375 vacancies of the higher posts, and the petitioner’s position is at serial no.1120 of the select list. In such a situation, it appears to us that the petitioner had no chance whatsoever of being promoted. 3. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) S.K.Pathak/