IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12057 of 2003 SHIV NATH GUPTA, S/o-Late Ram Lochan Gupta, R/o-Takia Bazar Sasaram, P.S.-Sasaram(T), District Rohtas at Sasaram at present posted as Senior Manager, Bhojpur-Rohtas Gramin Bank, Akbarpur Branch, P.S.-Rohtas, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. …….Petitioner Versus 1. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, having its office at Dakshini Raman Road, Ara. 2. Chief Vigilance Officer and General Manager, Incharge of Personnel and Training Department of the Bank, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, having its office at Dakshini Ramana Road, Ara, P.S.-Ara Town, District-Bhojpur. 3. Manager, Personnel, namely Satish Chandra Jha, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 4. Punjab National Bank, through B.N. Sharma, Member of Selection Committee, at present A.D.G.M., Protested and Defence Department, Vikaji Kama Palace, New Delhi. 5. Binay Kumar Sinha, District Development Manager, Scale-II Officer, NABARD, Patna. 6. Jai Nath Pandey, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Sasaram, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 7. Satish Chandra Jha, Senior Manager, Head Office Ara, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 8. Prabhu Nath Lal, Senior Manager, Branch Kamnasha, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 9. Tripurashwar Nath Sahay, Senior Manager, Head Office, Ara. 10. Brahmeshwar Nath Tiwary, Senior Manager, Branch Nainijor, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 11. Beni Madhav Singh, Regional Manager, Regional Office Bhabua, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 12. Bindeshwar Sharma, Senior Manager, Regional Office, Bhabua, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 13.Lal Mohar Ram, Senior Manager, Branch-Kayamnagar, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 14.Rajeshwar Singh, Regional Manger, Regional Office, Jagdhishpur, \ Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 15. Rameshwar Nath Rai, Senior Inspector, Regional Office, Bikarmganj, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. 16. Baxshi Arbind Prakash Sinha, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Baxur, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. …….Respondents. ----------- - 2 - 07. 21.07.2009 The petitioner was Class-II employee of Bhojpur Rohtash Gramin Bank at Ara. He has come to this Court challenging denial of his promotion to Class-III post as well as challenging the promotion as granted to others. In order to maintain writ, it must be first examined whether petitioner was at all entitled to promotion or not because merely because someone else has been promoted or wrongly promoted can not entitle the petitioner to promotion. If he is not otherwise qualified for promotion then he can not challenge the promotion as granted to others. In the present case, it is not in dispute that as per the relevant service rules, Class-II post are filler post for Class-III post. All class-III posts have to be filled up by promotion only and promotion is to be on basis of seniority cum merit. As per the relevant service Rules, for the purposes of testing suitability for promotion previous five years periods is to be appraised. On basis of that 75 marks are marks to be awarded. This is followed by an interview of 25 marks. Thus total marks to be given are 100. The service Rules provide that minimum qualifying marks in the interview are 50% i.e. 12.5 marks. The petitioner does not dispute that he got about 11 marks only and as such fail in the interview itself. Petitioner states that this is because of whimsical attitude of the - 3 - Interview Board. I am afraid interview is a subjective test over which this Court can not sit in appeal. Petitioner having failed in the interview is looses the eligibility for being considered for promotion. Thus petitioner fail in interview can not claim promotion as a matter of right. Petitioner has then submitted that some other person against whom a criminal case was pending and as such was ineligible for promotion has been promoted. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the criminal proceedings have been stayed by this Court in an application for quashing. The Promotion Committee having taken that into account has given him promotion. It is stated that even in petitioner’s case, his case was considered earlier for promotion when there were adverse remarks against him and proceedings pending. The authority followed the sealed cover procedure. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in this writ application, it is accordingly dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)