IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEEN DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9878 of 1999 Between: V. Subba Reddy … Petitioner AND The Chairman, Sree Ananta Grameena Bank, Anantapur, Anantapur District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondent : Sri K. Nagireddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9878 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to hold that fixing of minimum marks/bench marks as 50% of the total marks allotted for performance in interview held on 07.04.1999, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri Nagireddy, learned counsel representing the respondent and perused the record. The plea of the petitioner is that reserving 50% of marks for interview in considering his promotion to a seniority post is illegal and arbitrary. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.V. Sivaiah vs. K. Adanki Babu[1], wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the respondent Bank has placed before us the relevant documents relating to the impugned selection and promotion. On a perusal of the said documents we find that 50 marks out of the total of 100 marks were prescribed as the minimum qualifying marks in interview were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. It was, therefore, a case where a minimum standard was prescribed for assessing the merit of the candidates and those who fulfilled the said minimum standard were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the selection has not been made in accordance with the principles of Seniority-cum-merit. We are therefore unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court dated February 7, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court has to be set aside and the promotion of the appellant on the post of Area/Senior Manager under order dated April 8, 1993 has to be affirmed.” Following this authoritative pronouncement, I see no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12171 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.12.2008 ES [1] (1998) 6 SCC 720