WA 63/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. MERUNO (Amitava Roy, J) In challenge is the judgment and order dated 18.2.2010 rendered in WP(C) No. 50(AP)/2009. We have heard Mr SS Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant Ban k and Mr PK Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner. For the order which we propose to pass for the present we do not conside r it necessary to issue formal notice to the respondent No.2. In response to a process initiated by the appellant Bank for promotion o f its in-house eligible candidates to the rank of Officer Scale-I the respondent s herein, amongst others, participated. The process was governed by the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 which prescribed the criteria of seniority-cum-merit therefor. The followin g segments of assessment for promotion to the post involved are enjoined thereby : i) Written test - 70 marks. ii) Interview - 20 marks. iii) Performance appraisal report- 10 marks In terms thereof a list of candidates securing minimum 40% marks in Engl ish, Banking Law, practice and procedure was to be drawn up on the basis of seni ority for the interview to follow. The written test logically was comprised of E nglish and Banking Law, practice and procedure of 35 marks each. Both the respon dents qualified in the written test and were interviewed. At the end of the sele ction process their tally of marks was as hereunder : Respondent No.1 : Written test - 32.15 Interview - 6 Performance appraisal report - 8.33 Seniority - 7 _____________________ Total - 53.48 Respondent No. 2: Written test - 35.90 Interview - 9 Performance appraisal report - 9.66 Seniority - 4 _____________________ Total - 58.56 Having regard to the parties in the fray vis-à-vis the selection involve d the marks of the other candidates are not relevant. In view of the marks secured as above, the respondent No.2 was preferred for promotion. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 approached this Court with the aforementioned writ petition for redress. By the impugned judgment and order , the selection of the respondent No.2 for promotion has been set at naught in e ssence on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the letter and spi rit of the criteria of seniority-cum-merit prescribed by the Rules. Mr Sharma has urged that as both the candidates had been awarded marks o n account of seniority founded on the length of qualifying service, the yardstic k of seniority-cum-merit had been followed and, thus, the finding to the contrar y is unsustainable in law and on facts. According to him, therefore, the impugne d judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. Mr Roy, in reply, has urged that seniority-cum-merit being unassailably enjoined by the Rules as the criteria for promotion, the disclosures from the re cords reveal that merit was given preference and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in interfering with the promotion of the respondent No .2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleadings on record and the documents available, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the criteria for promotion prescribed by th e Rules is seniority-cum-merit. However, the process undertaken for the eventual selection of the respondent No.2 for promotion demonstrates in unambiguous term s that merit was given weightage over seniority, more particularly, when having regard to the performance of the respondent No.1 in the written test he could no t have been discarded as unfit for the promotional post. The proposition of law expounded by the Apex Court and set out in the impugned judgment and order amply supports the view taken. As the respondent No.1 has not been adjudged to be unf it or unacceptable on merit rendering him dis-entitled to hold the promotional p ost for discharge of the duties attachable to it, we are of the view that having regard to the prescribed criteria for promotion he ought to be promoted. The ap pellant Bank apparently had adopted a process which is opposed to the essence of the criteria of seniority-cum-merit enjoined by the Rules for such promotion. In view of the above, we find no infirmity either in the reasonings or in the ul timate conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. As this appeal has been disposed of by this Bench in absence of the res pondent No.2, we leave him at liberty to revive it at his instance if he is so a dvised. No costs.