Letters Patent Appeal No.1226 OF 2000 ***** Against the order dated 30.6.2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4856 of 1999. ***** 1. Sri Binod Kumar Dwivedi, son of Sri Awadhesh Dwivedi, resident of village- Bhitahan Nizamat, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran. 2. Sri Bijay Kumar Srivastava, son of late Sahdeo Prasad, resident of Motihari, P.S. Motihari, District- East Champaran. ... Appellants. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Banking & Finance, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore- 560002. 3. Members of Interview Board, Canara Bank, through the Deputy General Manager, Patna Circle Office, Patna. 4. Sri P.P. Chatterjee 5. Sri J.K. Maity. 6. Sri S.R. Ahmad. 7. Sri S.K. Banerjee 8. Sri Rajendra Yadav 9. Sri Madan Mishra. 10. Sri Safroj Ahmad. 11. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh 12. Sri Anil Kumar Singh 13. Sri K.K. Srivastava 14. Sri Ravi Shanker 15. Sri Lalan Prasad 16. Sri Vishwanath Ram 17. Sri S.N. Roy. 18. Sri Praphull Kumar Pandey. 19. Sri Mangal Deo Minz. 20. Sri. K.C. Sah. 21. Sri Vijay Mundu All through Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Patna Circle Office, Patna. ….. Respondents. ***** For the appellants: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.K. Giri, Advocate. For Respondent nos.2 & 3: Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate. ***** 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ***** S K Katriar & J.Saran, JJ. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.4856 of 1999 (Vinod Kumar Dwivedi and another Vs. Union of India and others), and are aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2000, whereby the grievance of the writ petitioners that they have been wrongly declined promotion, has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Before we proceed further, we would like to indicate that learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not on instruction press the case of appellant no.1. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Appellant no.2 was appointed as a clerk in the respondent Bank on 1.3.1979. The promotion policy in the respondent Bank is incorporated in a tripartite agreement marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The promotion had to take place from the cadre of clerks to the next position of Junior Management Grade Scale-I. 80% of the posts are reserved for clerks, and 20% posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment. Appellant no.2 did not cross the cut-off 3 marks and was, therefore, not promoted leading to the writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent authorities have completely over-looked the notion of seniority-cum- merit. In his submission, once the candidate achieves the minimum qualifying marks and is within the zone of consideration, whereafter seniority is the only criterion. This is the first opportunity of promotion. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) (1998)6 S.C.C. 720 (B.V.Sivaiah and others Vs. K. Addanki Babu and others), paragraphs 8, 12 and 14. (ii) (2006)12 S.C.C. 574 (Bhagwan Das Tiwari and others Vs. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank), paragraph 13. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has supported the impugned action and submits that appellant no.2 did not survive the cut-off marks and was, therefore, not promoted. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the respondent Bank has fixed 201.66 marks as cut-off marks and appellant no.2 had scored only 198.50 marks. In that view of 4 the matter, he was not promoted. Secondly, the question advanced by learned counsel for the appellant before us was not raised before the learned Single Judge, where the only question seems to have been canvassed is that evaluation of the written test was erroneous. Learned Single Judge has noted as follows in the impugned order: “In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the marks under the different heads have been allotted to the petitioners, but the correctness of the quantum of marks which have been allotted by the Bank authorities cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its judicial power, since no allegation of malice or bias has been levelled by the petitioner against the persons who allotted the marks.” Thirdly, the final result had taken place way back in the year 1999, and 10 years have elapsed since then. We would, therefore, not like to re-open the matter at this belated stage. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 13th day of August, 2009 S.K.Pathak/ (N.A.F.R.)