Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)

K.V.T. Prasanna Kumar And Ors. vs Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Rep. By Its ... on 23 September, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1994(3)ALT621

Author:
B.S. Raikote

Bench:
B.S. Raikote

JUDGMENT

1. All these writ appeals, except Writ Appeal Nos. 417 and 422 of 1994, arise out of a common order dated September 7,1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 172.79 of 1989 and Batch. Writ Appeals 417 and 422 of 1994 are directed against the order dated December 17,1993 in Writ Petition No. 5204 of 1992, which has been disposed of following the order in Writ Petition No. 17279 of 1989 and Batch.

2. The Common question that arises for consideration in all these writ appeals pertains to the method of selection of Branch Managers working in the two Regional Rural Banks, viz., Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and Pinakini Grameena Bank, for promotion to the posts of Area/Senior Managers. Whereas some of the writ appeals have been preferred by the Banks, the other writ appeals have been filed by the employees. Therefore, all these writ appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and Finakini Grameena Bank have been established under
Section 3
of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). Each Bank is a Body Corporate. The Regional Rural Banks are established "with a view to developing the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs" as the preamble to the Act indicates. The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a Regional Rural Bank vest in a Board of Directors. In discharging its functions, the Board shall act on business principles and shall have due regard to public interest (
Section 8
) .A Regional Rural Bank may appoint such number of officers and other employees as it may consider necessary or desirable, in such manner as may be prescribed, for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. The officers and other employees shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be entrusted or delegated to them by the Board (
Section 17
). In the discharge of its functions, a Regional Rural Bank shall be guided by such directions, in regard to matters of policy involving public interest, as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Reserve Bank, give (
Section 24
), The Central Government is conferred power to make Rules, after consultation with the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) (hereinafter referred to as 'National Bank') and the sponsor Bank for carrying out the provisions of the Act, in particular, inter alia, the manner in which the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks shall be appointed or any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed (
Section 29
). The Board of Directors of a Regional Rural Bank is authorised to make regulations, after consultation with the Sponsor Bank and the National Bank, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act.

4. We are concerned in these cases with the promotions made during the years 1988 and 1989 in the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and during the year 1992 in the Pinakini Grameena Bank to the posts of Area/Senior Manager from the post of Branch Manager.
The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976
, had been amended by the
Regional Rural Banks (Amendment) Act, 1987
(Act 1 of 1988). Some of the amendments which are relevant for the purpose of these cases are mentioned. In almost all the sections, except
Section 24
, for the words 'Reserve Bank' the words 'National Bank' have been substituted.
Section 29
has been amended by insertion of clause (ba) in sub-section (2), conferring power on the Central Government to make Rules relating to the manner in which the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks shall be appointed. In subsection (1) of
Section 17
, the words "in such manner as may be prescribed " have been added after the words "necessary or desirable". After the amendment of the Act, the Central Government framed the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988, in the exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 29
read with
Section 17
of the Act, in its notification dated September 28,1988. The relevant provisions of these Rules will be referred to at a later stage. Prior to the making of these Rules, the Central Government issued a Circular dated October 10,1987 addressed to the Deputy General Manager, National Bank, indicating the criteria to be followed in the matter of promotion of Branch Managers to the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers in Regional Rural Banks. The relevant portion of this Circular reads thus:

"......It is, therefore, requested that the Chairman of all the RRBs may be apprised that since the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers are promotional posts to be filled up 100% by promotion from only one source, the non-selection rule of seniority-cum-merit has to be applied. This rule envisages promotion by seniority with due consideration to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies that there is nothing against the officer. No disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonably recent past. The promotions are meant to be made on the above mentioned consideration."

Thereafter, the National Bank issued a Circular dated December 1, 1987 apprising all the Regional Rural Banks that the matter relating to the promotion of Branch Managers to the posts of Area/Senior Managers had been examined by it in consultation with the Government of India. It advised all the Rural Banks that "the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers are promotional posts to be filled up by 100% promotion from only one source and non-selection rule of seniority-cum-merit has to be applied. This rule envisages promotion by seniority with due consideration to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies that there is nothing against an officer; no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonably recent past. The promotions are meant to be made on the above mentioned considerations only. In other words, if a Manager satisfies the qualifications and eligibility criteria and there is nothing adverse against him, his due promotion should not be denied to him...." In its subsequent Circular dated February 10, 1988, the National Bank clarified that the earlier Circular dated December 1,1987 had been issued with the basic objective of obviating any injustice to the staff working in the Regional Rural Banks and that the guidelines contained in the above Circular cannot be interpreted to mean that the promotions will be automatic without any screening whatsoever. It was made clear that the Regional Rural Banks were not precluded from making an objective assessment of the officers' potential for considering their suitability for promotion and that a system of objective assessment should be evolved and the potential for shouldering higher responsibilities should specifically be recorded in every performance appraisal so as to ensure that only efficient staff are eligible for promotion.

5. Rayalaseema Grameena Bank framed the "Staff Service Regulations" in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 30
of the Act, after consultation with the Sponsor Bank, viz., Syndicate Bank. They came into force on October 1,1980.
Regulation 14
, which deals with Promotions, provides that all appointments and promotions shall be made at the discretion of the Bank and no officer or employee shall have a right to be appointed or promoted to any particular post or grade. So also, Pinakini Grameena Bank framed "Staff Service Regulations", which came into force on February 2,1984.
Regulation 14
of these Regulations, which pertains to Promotions, is in identical terms as the one framed by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank.

6. In March, 1988, Rayalaseema Grameena Bank decided to create four Senior Manager posts and four Area Manager posts. The posts are equivalent in rank and inter-changeable. Whereas the Senior Manager works at Head Office, the Area Manager works in the field. To fill the above created posts, the Board of Directors of the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank laid down the following promotion process and communicated the same to all its Branches in Circular No. 27/STF/16/88 dated March, 3,1988:

"(A) ELIGIBILITY:- The Officers who have put in 8 (Eight) years of service in the Bank in the cadre of Branch Manager as on31-12-1987 are eligible to be considered for the promotion process.

(B) MODALITIES:

(a) Seniroity - 45 marks (0.5 marks for each completed
month of service over and above
the minimum qualifying service)
(b) Qualification - 5 marks (Minimum qualification applicable
to the cadre shall not be reckoned)
Post Graduation .. 1 mark
Diploma/s .. 1 mark
CAIIB - Part I .. 1 mark
CAIIB-Part II .. 2 marks.
(c) Leave record - 5 marks
(d) Interview - 30 marks
(e) Performance - 65 marks

02. These promotions will be effective from 1st May, 1988.

03. The eligible candidates will be called for the interview directly (candidates need not submit any application in this regard)......"

Following the said promotion process, 8 Branch Managers were promoted with effect from May 1,1988 in the proceedings dated May 3,1988. In this connection, we may also mention that another Circular dated May 11,1988 was issued by the National Bank to all the Sponsor Banks further clarifying the scope of its Circular dated December 1,1987. The relevant portion of the Circular reads:

"As you are aware, our Circular referred to above laid down a promotional policy which is based on equity and justice, with due consideration to merit/fitness prescribed. However, it has been suggested to us by a number of sponsor banks and RRBs that there should be a uniform criteria for all the RRBs in regard to merit-cum-suitability. It is in this context that we have drawn up a marks system for promotions to be effected in various categories of staff in RRBs. Those are enclosed for your perusal and consideration. As can be seen there from, importance has been given to seniority as also the confidential reports of the Officers/ employees but in order to consider merit/ suitability a little weightage has been given to academic qualifications, service beyond the stipulated period and also the performance at the interview, the marks for which have been kept to the minimum. It is felt that this system with such modifications as you may feel necessary in the light of your experience, will meet the standards of proficiency, merit and suitability desired for effecting promotions in the RRBs......"

Under this process, out of 100 marks, 70 marks are awarded for performance appraisal and 30 marks for interview.

7. The Branch Managers, who were promoted to the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers on May 3, 1988, assumed office and their promotions were not questioned by any employee at that time. After their promotion, the Rules framed by the Central Government in the notification dated September 28,1988 came into force. Rule 3 provides that the Board of Directors of each Regional Rural Bank may create such number of posts as are specified in the Second Schedule to the Rules, in consultation with the Sponsor Bank. The vacancies shall be filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule. The relevant portion of the Second Schedule relating to filling up of posts of Area Managers or Senior Managers reads thus:

"7. Area Managers...or. SeniorManagers.

(a) Source of Recruitment : Hundred percent by promotion from
amongst confirmed officers workingin
the bank. Promotions will be on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit. If
suitable officers are not available
internally, these posts could be filled
up by taking temporarily officers of
the sponsor banks and other banks or
organisations on deputation.
(b) Qualifications and eligibility : (i) A graduate of recognised
university or any equivalent
qualifications recognised as
such by Government of India,
preference being given to
Agriculture or Commerce or
Economics Graduates.
(ii) Eight Years service as an officer
in the regional rural bank
concerned. Provided that the
Board may, with the prior
approval of National Bank,
relax the period of service by a
period not exceeding two
years, if suitable candidates of
requisite experience are not
available.
Note: The post of Area Managers and Senior Managers will be equivalent
in Rank and will be inter-changeable.
(c) Mode of Selection : Interview and assessment of
performance reports for the
preceding three years period as
Officer for promotion."

The Board of the Regional Rural Bank may, from time to time, constitute Staff Selection Committee consisting of the following persons for the purpose of selecting candidates for promotion to the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers: The Chairman, a Director nominated by the Reserve Bank of India, a Director nominated by the National Bank and a Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank. The Committee shall follow the procedure as determined by the Board, for selecting the candidates, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time.

8. In the month of September, 1989, the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank decided to create 5 posts of Area/Senior Managers. It formulated the following promotion process for filling up of those posts and communicated it to all its branches in its Circular dated September 27, 1989:

"1. ELIGIBILITY:

All the Officers (Branch Managers) who have joined the services of the Bank on or before 1-4-1981 are eligible to be considered for the promotion process.

2. MODALITIES:

(a) Seniority - 34 marks (0.75 mark for each completed
month of service over and above
the minimum qualifying service)
(b) Qualifications - 10-marks (Minimum qualification applicable
to the cadre shall not be reckoned)
Post Graduation - 3 marks.
Double Graduation
(Like BL, LLB, B.Ed.) - 1 mark.
Any Diploma/s - 2 marks.
CAIIBPart-I - 2 marks.
CAIIBPart-II - 2 marks.
(c) Interview - 20 marks.
(d) Performance - 56 marks.

All the eligible candidates will be called for the interview directly(Candidates need not submit any applications in this regard)." Following that process, 5 Branch Managers were pomoted; two as Area Managers and three as Senior Managers, in the proceedings dated December 1, 1989.

9. Challenging the promotions made in the year 1989, Mr. K. V.T. Prasanna Kumar, a Branch Manager, filed Writ Petition No. 17263 of 1989 on the file of this Court on December 11,1989. In this writ petition, he sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that the promotion process to the posts of Area/Senior Managers from the Post of Branch Manager as adopted by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank in its Circular dated September 27,1989 was illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution of India and also declaring that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Area/Senior Manager on the basis of his seniority and record with effect from the date when his immediate junior was promoted. In this writ petition, apart from the five candidates selected during the year 1989, some of the candidates selected during the year 1988 were also made parties. Thus, the writ petition was directed only against the promotions made during the year 1989. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, some averments were made in respect of the promotion process undertaken by the Bank during the year 1988 for filling up 8 posts of Area/Senior Managers. On the basis of those averments, it is sought to be contended that the promotions made during the year 1988 were also assailed in the writ petition. We will consider the merits of this contention at a later stage.

10. Three Branch Managers, viz., (1) G. Anantha Raju; (2) P. Sainath Reddy; and (3) C. Vijayakumar Reddy, filed Writ Petition No. 17279 of 1989 questioning the validity of the proceedings dated December 1,1989 of the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank promoting five Branch Managers as Area/Senior Managers. This writ petition was filed on December 12,1989 and in this writ petition also, the promotions made during the year 1988 have not been challenged.

11. In Writ Petition No. 3546 of 1990 filed by one of the Branch Managers, Mr. P.V. Krishna Murthy, only the promotions made on December 1,1989 have been challenged. This writ petition was filed on February 16,1990.

12. Writ Petition No. 9692 of 1993 had been preferred on July 13,1993 by Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, one of the Branch Managers, Assailing the promotions made on May 3,1988 and in this writ petition, none of the candidates promoted during the year 1988 to the post of Area/Senior Manager was impleaded as a party-respondent.

13. All the four writ petitions referred to above were heard together by the learned single Judge. While allowing the three writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 17263 & 17279 of 1989 and 3546 of 1990 and declaring that the promotions made on December 1,1989 to the posts of Area/Senior Managers from the post of Branch Manager in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank were illegal and improper, the learned Judge dismissed Writ Petition No. 9692 of 1993, in which the promotions made in the year 1988 were assailed, on the ground of laches. Thus, all the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge on September 7, 1993.

14. During the pendency of the writ petitions referred to above on the file of this Court, three Branch Managers of Pinakini Grameena Bank, viz., (1) K. Addanki Babu; (2) P. Raghava Rao; and (3) V.C.Krishna Prasad, filed Writ Petition No. 5204 of 1992 for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-Bank in adopting the method of merit-cum-seniority for promotion of Managers to the post of Area Managers and Senior Managers, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the order of the Bank dated April 20,1992 promoting five Branch Managers as Area/Senior Managers. This writ petition was also allowed by the learned single Judge following the decision referred to above and the proceedings of the bank promoting five Branch Managers as Area/Senior Managers were set aside.

15. The Board of Directors of Pinakini Grameena Bank decided in February, 1992 to create two posts of Area Managers and four posts of Senior Managers. The Board formulated the promotion policy and communicated it to all the Branches through its Circular No. 37/PSD/13/92 dated Marchl6, 1992. It provides that the selection procedure shall be based on seniority-cum-merit. Following is the promotion process:

"Eligibility:

The Officers (Managers) who have completed 8 years of service as on 31-3-1992 are eligible for considering the promotion to Area/Senior Manager posts.

(a) Seniority. : 55 marks
Officers (managers) who have completed
8 years of service as per SSR of the Bank.
(b) For passing CAIIB Part I : 2 marks
CAIIB Part II : 3 marks
(c) Performance : 25 marks
(d) Interview : 15 marks
Total : 100 marks.

Further, we observe that many of the Officers (Managers) have not submitted the performance appraisals for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 to assess their performance. Such officers are advised to submit the performance appraisals so as to reach HO:PSD on or before 31-3-1992. Otherwise, we will be constrained to assess their performance based on the information available with us.

A committee is constituted for the purpose of conducting interviews as per Government of India guidelines.

The dates of interviews will be intimated to the candidates individually, in due course."

Five Branch Managers, viz., (1) Sri G. Chandrasekhar; (2) Sri B.V. Sivaiah; (3) Sri L. Chandramal Reddy; (4) Sri A.C. Seshagiri Rao; and (5) Sri D. Suryaprakasa Rao, were promoted to the posts of Area/Senior Managers in the proceedings of the Bank dated April 20,1992. Pursuant to the interim directions of this Court in a miscellaneous petition filed in Writ Petition No. 4997 of 1992, four Branch Managers viz., (1) Sri D. Venkateswara Rao; (2) Sri G. Ravindra Babu; (3) Sri K.S. Sai Prasad; and (4) D. V. Rami Reddy, were called for interview. However, their results have been withheld in accordance with the directions of this Court and Writ Petition No. 4997 of 1992 is still pending on the file of this Court.

16. In Writ Appeal Nos. 1142, 1210 and 1224 of 1993, the appellants are assailing the promotions made on May 3,1988 in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank to the post of Area/Senior Manager from the post of Branch Manager. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W. A. No. 1 142 of 1993, that it was specifically averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the promotion process undertaken by the Bank during the year 1988 was illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, those promotions were invalid. The learned Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that no relief was sought for in respect of the promotions made during the year 1988 and holding that even otherwise it was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is further submitted that all those who were promoted during the year 1988, except Sri Mohammed Khan and Mr. Md. Zahid-ul-Haq, had been impleaded as party-respondents in that writ petition and when all of them were before the Court, the learned Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that specific relief was not sought for in the writ petition regarding 1988 promotions as well as of laches.

17. In W.A. No. 1210 of 1993, the appellants have filed W.A.M.P. No. 2188 of 1993 seeking amendment of the prayer in W.P. No. 17279 of 1989 for declaring the proceedings of Rayalaseema Grarneena Bank dated May 3,1988 promoting eight Branch Managers to the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. In W. A. No. 1224 of 1993, it is contended that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge committed an error of law in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.

18. Apart from urging that the refusal to quash the promotions made in the year 1988 on the ground of laches is illegal and improper, it is submitted by the learned Counsel on merits that the promotions made during the year 1988 by Rayalaseema Grameena Bank on the basis of selection ignoring the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' are contrary to the guidelines of the Central Government and the National Bank, and therefore, they are unsustainable in the eye of law. In this context, the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed strong reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated March, 7, 1990 in W.A. No. 604 of 1988. In this decision, the validity of the Circular dated October 10, 1987 of the Central Government and the two Circulars dated December 1,1987 and February 10,1988 issued by the National Bank, laying down the criterion of seniority-cum-merit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager from the post of Branch Manager and how that criterion shall be applied had been considered. The Division Bench held that a Regional Rural Bank was not justified in not following the criterion of seniority- cum-merit in promoting the Branch Managers to the post of Area/Senior Managers and the process of selection based on the principle of merit-cum- seniority was illegal and improper. The same view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in its Judgment dated July 16,1991inCivil Order No. 5026Wof 1990. So also, the Karnataka High Court, in its Judgment dated April 10,1991 in Writ Petition No. 5545 of 1988 and batch, and the Allahabad High Court in Sheetla Bux Singh v. Union of India, 1994 Labour and Industrial Cases 313 took the same view as that of the Kerala High Court. Against the decision of the Kerala High Court, the aggrieved parties approached the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 6066 to 6068 of 1990; 6085 to 6087 of 1990 and S.L.P. No. 5941 of 1990, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court after notice to the respondents therein, in its order dated May 2,1990. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the decision of the Supreme Court confirming the order of the Kerala High Court is the one rendered on merits and thus being the law declared by the Supreme Court, is binding on this Court under
Article 141
of the Constitution of India.
Apart from that, it is contended by the learned Counsel, placing reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
, that seniority- cum-merit means "that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority". (Paragraph 38 of page 500). Therefore, it is vehemently urged that the process of selection undertaken by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank in promoting Branch Managers to the posts of Area/Senior Managers is violative of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution of India.

19. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank and the selected candidates, have referred to the provisions of
Sections 8
,
and
of the Act and submitted that it is for the Board of Management of the Bank to determine the terms and conditions of appointment and service. If, in exercise of such power, the Board of Directors has laid down the promotion process prescribing the criteria of a warding marks for each relevant factor and applying the criteria, assessed the suitability/fitness of the candidates, it cannot be said that the promotion process undertaken by the Bank is violative of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution of India. In that context, it is submitted that the guidelines, if any, issued by either Central Government or the National Bank prior to the framing of statutory rules by the Central Government in September, 1988, do not have any binding force on the Regional Rural Banks and such guidelines cannot be characterised as matters of policy involving public interest, contemplated under
Section 24
of the Act. In any event, as those guidelines have been issued without consulting the Reserve Bank as required under
Section 24
, they do not have any binding effect. The criteria
laid down by
the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank for the purpose of promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager from the post of Branch Manager during the year 1988 prescribing marks for performance appraisal, interview and for seniority, are quite in accordance with the principles enunciated in various decisions of the Supreme Court in that regard. The Kerala, Calcutta, Kamataka and Allahabad High Courts did not refer to the provisions of
Sections 8
,
and
of the Act and they merely proceeded on the footing that the Central Government and the national bank being the apex bank, under whose control the Rural Banks have to function, have the power to lay down the guidelines for promotion, and the Regional Rural Banks are bound by the guidelines issued by the Central Government in consultation with the National Bank. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the post of Area/Senior Manager is just lower in rank than that of the General Manager, which is the only one top executive post for the entire Regional Rural Bank, and when an Area Manager has to supervise the functioning of about 20 Branches, the promotion to such a higher post cannot be made solely on the basis of seniority. As held by the Supreme Court, the promotion to such a higher post shall always be on the basis of merit and through a process of selection. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court.

20. Before we consider those contentions relating to merits, it would be appropriate to consider whether in a case like this, it would be proper to grant relief in favour of employees who approached the Court at a belated stage. As we have already pointed out, the promotions to the 8 posts of Area/Senior Managers were made on May 3,1988. At that time, the writ petitioners did not feel aggrieved and therefore they did not question those promotions. For the year 1989, the promotions were made on December 1, 1989. Only those promotions were assailed by some of the employees by filing writ petitions on December 11, 1989 and December 12, 1989. One writ petition was filed on February 16,1990. In none of those writ petitions, was any relief sought for in respect of the promotions made on May 3, 1988, obviously for the reason that they could not be assailed at such a belated stage, after promotions for the subsequent year, viz., 1989, had been effected. That the writ petitioners did not feel aggrieved by the promotions made on May 3, 1988 is evident from the fact that not only they kept quiet till the promotions for the subsequent year 1989 were made, but they submitted themselves to the process of promotion for the year 1989.
If the promotions made on May 3, 1988 are set aside after the promotions for the year 1989 have been completed, the candidates selected during the year 1988 will suffer irreparable loss, as they stand deprived of an opportunity to be considered for the promotions made during the year 1989. If the employees stand by and allow things to happen, such employees shall not be permitted to raise stale claims at a belated stage. Otherwise, settled matters become unsettled. As
laid down by
the Supreme Court, a person aggrieved by the promotion of his colleague, who is junior to him, should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most within an year of such promotion, vide
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
, 1976 (1) SLR 53. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted:

"Not only respondent 2 but also respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under
Article 226
nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot inter fere in matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under
Article 226
in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters."

In a latter decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Court will not normally inquire into a belated and stale claim, as such inquiry may lead to an unhealthy practice resulting in improper exercise of discretion. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule can be laid in such matters and it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to the nature of the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed. The relevant portion of
the said decision
in Dehri Rohtas Light Rly.
Co. v. Distt. Board, Bhojpur, which is apposite, reads thus:

"The rule which says that the Court may not enquiry into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ Court before a-parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence, the test is not to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches." (Paragraph 13)

However, the learned Counsel for the appellants /writ petitioners have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, . Even in this case, which has arisen under
Article 32
of the Constitution of India, it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that each case must depend on its own facts. The learned Judges have quoted with approval the observations of Hidayatullah, C.J., that it is one of discretion for the Court to follow from case to case and there is no lower limit and there is no upper limit.
Relying on another decision of the Supreme Court in
V. Kameswari v. Union of India and Ors.
, 1993 Vol.24 Administrative Tribunal Cases 396 it is urged by the learned Counsel that even in a case where an employee had approached the Tribunal four years after the promotion of her colleague, the Supreme Court directed that from the date of its order, the employee shall be entitled to receive her emoluments on the basis of her pay fixed as a consequence of her promotion to the post of Junior Clerk and by way of arrears, she shall be paid one-fourth of the amount.

21. In cases of belated and stale claims, the Court will have to look into the conduct of the parties, which have approached the Court, and the rights that have accrued in favour of others. As we have already pointed out, the writ petitioners did not raise their little finger objecting to the promotions made on May 3, 1988 till promotions for the year 1989 were completed. Even in the present writ petitions, which were filed in December 1989 and February 1990, they did not seek any relief in respect of promotions made on May 3,1988. We do not find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 1142 of 1993 that he questioned the promotions made on May 3,1988 in W.P. No. 17263 of 1989. The prayer in the writ petition is clear and categorical and no relief is sought for in respect of the promotions made on May 3,1988. Merely because some averments are made referring to the promotions effected in the year 1988, it cannot be inferred that the writ petitioner has sought for relief in respect of the promotions made in the year 1988. So far as Writ Petition No. 9692 of 1993 is concerned, it had been filed after a lapse of about four years after the promotions were effected in the year 1988. The conduct of the writ petitioners in keeping quiet for more than an year and submitting themselves to the promotion process undertaken by the Bank for filling up the posts for the year 1989, disentitles them to seek relief in respect of promotions made in the year 1988, at a belated stage. Apart from that, some rights have accrued in favour of the employees promoted on May 3, 1988 and if their promotions are to be set aside subsequent to the promotions made on December 1,1989, it will cause them irreparable loss.

22. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana
, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners that even if the promotions of the year 1988 are not quashed, at least a direction can be given to place the appellants/writ petitioners, in case they are found fit for promotion subsequently, above those who were promoted to the post of Area/Senior Manager on May 3,1988, in the order of seniority and also to pay arrears of salary for the relevant period. We are not inclined to grant any such relief in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners. As is evident from
Section 8
read with
Section 17
, it is for the Regional Rural Bank to determine the terms and conditions of appointment of its officers and other employees. The general power of superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of the Bank vests in the Board of Directors. There were no statutory Rules made by the Central Government, governing the promotions made in the year 1988. The Board of the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank evolved a promotion process allocating marks for performance appraisal and interview as well as seniority. The employees promoted on May 3,1988 have been working in the higher post of Area/Senior Manager for more than five years by now. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners.

23. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge refusing to interfere with the promotions made on May 3,1988 by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank. For the same reasons, W.A.M.P. No. 2188 of 1993 in W.A. No. 1210 of 1993, seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition is also dismissed. In view of this conclusion, the following direction given by the learned single Judge in respect of the promotions made during the year 1988 is set aside:

".....As the bidning NABARD Regulations were violated, the petitioners if selected for promotions to the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager shall be given their due ranks while arranging the seniority in the said cadre of Area Managers /Senior Managers."

24.
Section 29
of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, confers power on the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Such Rules may provide for all or any of the matters enumerated in Sub-section (2). This Section was amended by the
Regional Rural Banks (Amendment) Act, 1987
, by inserting Clause (ba) after Clause (b) in sub-section (2). The inserted Clause (ba) reads as follows:

"(ba). the manner in which the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks shall be appointed,"

After the amendment, the Central Government framed the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988, in the Notification dated September 28, 1988. Rule 4 pertains to the determination of the number of vacancies in each post by the Board of a Regional Rural Bank, in consultation with the sponsor Bank. Rule 5 deals with filling up of vacancies determined under Rule 4. It provides that the vacancies shall be filled by deputation, promotion or direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule. Under Rule 10, the Board of a Regional Rural Bank has the power to constitute Staff Selection Committees for the purpose of selecting candidates for appointment on promotion. For the purpose of selection of officers for promotion to the posts of General Manager, Area Manager or Senior Manager, the Staff Selection Committee shall consist of the Chairman, a Director nominated by the Reserve Bank of India, a Director nominated by the National Bank and a Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank. The Committee shall follow the procedure as determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time. The Committee shall recommend to the Board the candidates selected by it for consideration for promotion. In the Second Schedule to the Rules, the source of recruitment, qualifications, eligibility, and mode of selection are prescribed for each category of posts. Item 7 in the Second Schedule relates to Area Managers or Senior Managers. The source of recruitment for this category of post is " 100% by promotion from amongst confirmed officers working in the Bank. Promotions will be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. If suitable officers are not available internally, these posts could be filled by taking temporarily officers of the Sponsor Banks and other Banks or organisations on deputation". Qualifications and eligibility criterion reads as follows:

"(i) A graduate of recognised university or any equivalent qualifications recognised as such by Government of India; preference being given to Agriculture or Commerce or Economics Graduates.

(ii) Eight years service as an officer in the regional rural bank concerned. Provided that the board may, with the prior approval of National Bank, relax the period of service by a period not exceeding two years, if suitable candidates of requisite experience are not available.

Note: The post of Area Managers and Senior Managers will be equivalent in rank and will be inter-changeable."

The mode of selection is "interview and assessment of performance reports for the proceeding three years period as Officer for promotion".

25. The vacancy in the post of General Manager also has to be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Each Regional Rural Bank has only one post of General Manager and it is the highest administrative post in the Bank, just below that of the Chairman of the Bank. It is stated that each Regional,, Rural Bank has about 80 to 140 Branches. Rayalaseema Grameena Bank has 142 Branches. An Area Manager will be in-charge of about 20 Branches. A Senior Manager works in the Head Office and he is just below the rank of General Manager. The posts of Area Managers and Senior Managers are interchangeable. Thecategory of posts, which is just below that of Area/Senior Managers, is that of the Officers. They are posted as Branch Managers. Each Officer will be in-charge of one Branch. The source of recruitment for the post of Officer is "50% by direct recruitment from open market and 50% by promotion from amongst confirmed Field Supervisors on the principle of seniority-cum-merit". The eligibility criterion provides that if suitable Field Supervisors are not available, the vacancies to be filled up by promotion shall be filled by direct recruitment. The next lower category is that of Field Supervisors. The source of recruitment for these posts is also 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from amongst confirmed Senior and Junior Clerks-cum-Cashier or Clerk-cum-typists or Stenographers or Steno-Typists, on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit. Even the posts of Senior Clerk-cum- Cashier are filled up 100% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The mode of selection for officers is interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years period for promotion which is the same as the one prescribed for promotion to the post of Area /Senior Manager. So also, the mode of selection for the Field Supervisors for the purpose of promotion is interview and assessment of performance reports.

26. After those Rules came into force, the Rayalaseema Grameen Bank issued a communication dated September 27, 1989, which was circulated to all its Branches, containing the promotion process to be undertaken for filling up 5 vacancies in the posts of Area/Senior Managers. Particulars of the eligibility criterion and the marks, have already been mentioned. Following that process, 5 candidates were selected and promoted to the posts of Area /Senior Managers on December 1,1989. On December 12,1989, the first writ petition was filed questioning those promotions. Thereafter, some other writ petitions were filed. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the promotions were not made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and were thus violative of the statutory rules framed by the Central Government.

27. So also, another Regional Bank, viz., Pinakini Grameena Bank, had created 2 posts of the Area Managers and 4 posts of Senior Managers in February, 1992 and for the purpose of filling up of those vacancies, the Board of that Bank prescribed the promotion process. Through its Circular dated March 16, 1992, the Bank communicated to all its Branches "the eligibility criteria and the system of promotion process from Officer (Manager cadre) to Area/Senior Manager cadre", the relevant contents of which have been mentioned supra. 5 Branch Managers were promoted to the posts of Area/ Senior Managers with effect from April 20,1992. W.P. No. 5204 of 1992 had been filed by three Branch Managers questioning the promotion process undertaken by the Bank. This writ petition was allowed on December 17,1993 following the Judgment dated September 7, 1993 in W.P. No. 17279 of 1989 and Batch.

Thereafter, a review petition was filed and that was dismissed on April 8,1994. Questioning the same, the Bank and the successful candidates have filed W. A. Nos. 417 and 422 of 1994 respectively.

28. The question of validity of the promotions made by the two Regional Rural Banks subsequent to the Rules framed by the Central Government in its Notification dated September 28,1988 arises for consideration. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Banks as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the selected candidates that the Rules framed by the Central Government themselves prescribe the mode of selection by way of interview and assessment of performance reports and the promotion process followed by both the Banks is in accordance with the Rules and also the various decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the selection of candidates for promotion to a higher post on the basis of interview and assessment of performance reports. Rayalaseema Grameena Bank followed the process of awarding 56 marks for performance and 20 marks for interview, out of a total of 150 marks, whereas Pinakini Grameena Bank adopted the promotion process of awarding 25 marks for performance and 15 marks for interview, out of a total of 100 marks. As regards seniority, Rayalaseema Grameena Bank allotted 34 marks out of a total of 150 marks, whereas Pinakini Grameena Bank awarded 54 marks out of a total of 100 marks. The marks so allocated for each criterion is in accordance with the principles
laid down by
the Supreme Court in various decisions. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that both the Banks selected candidates for promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority instead of seniority-cum-merit and therefore the entire process of selection is vitiated by an error of law.

29. The post of Area/Senior Manager is just below that of the General Manager of the Bank. An Area Manager has to supervise and be in-charge of about 20 Branches. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that any promotion to such a higher post shall be on the basis of selection and cannot be solely on the basis of seniority. In support of his contention that higher the post the less the weightage that shall be given to seniority, the learned Counsel have placed reliance on a passage in 'Introduction to the study of Public Administration' by Leonard D. White, which has been extracted by the Supreme Court in Santhram v. State of Rajasthan, . The relevant portion of that extract reads thus:

".....Seniority is given most weight in promotions from the lowest to other sub-ordinate positions. As employees move up the ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less and less weight. When seniority is made the sole determining factor, at any level, it is a dangerous guide. It does not follow that the employee longest in service in a particular grade is best suited for promotion to a higher grade; the very opposite may be true." (page 1916)

Our attention is drawn to the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in
D.Y. Moghe v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
, 1991 (1) SLR 474 wherein the learned Judge observed as follows:

"Based on these considerations, I hold that the principle of 'seniority-cum- merit' may have slightly different signification as it applies to promotion to different categories of posts. In promotion to posts in the lower categories which involve more of manual and less of intellectual endeavour, seniority may be predominant, merit being understood only in the sense of fitness. In that process, the unfit senior alone may be excluded. Among persons who are equally fit, the senior has preference. In intermediate posts, seniority becomes less significant and merit has a slight edge depending on the nature of the post and the duties and responsibilities attached to that. In senior positions, greater emphasis may be laid on merit than seniority, though promotion cannot be based entirely on merit. An outstanding junior may steal a march over an 'average' or 'satisfactory' senior and may get an out-of-turn promotion."

However, it was observed:

"The last phase will be selection based entirely on merit without reference to seniority at all. That phase is beyond the principle of seniority-cum-merit."

30. The Rules framed by the Central Government in the exercise of statutory power clearly prescribe that the posts of Area/Senior Managers shall be filled up "100% by promotion" on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The thrust of argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' contemplates that only if the senior-most eligible Officer (Branch Manager) does not possess the minimum necessary merit to hold the post of Area/Senior Manager, then only his immediate junior in the cadre of Officers (Branch Managers) can be considered for promotion. As this promotion process has not been followed and on the other hand, the Bank has selected employees for promotion on the basis of the principle of merit-cum- seniority, the learned Judge was quite justified in quashing the promotions.

31.
In
State of Mysore v. Syed Mahtnood
, the promotion to the post of Senior Statistical Assistant from the cadre of Junior Statistical Assistant and Progress Assistant was questioned, on the ground that the State Government promoted Junior Statistical Assistants without considering the case of the seniors. The High Court directed the State Government to promote the petitioners before it, who were seniors, with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have issued such a direction "without giving the State Government an opportunity in the first instance" to consider the fitness of the seniors for promotion. While holding so, the learned Judges observed:

"Where the promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit, the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone. If he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted."

On the basis of that observation, it is emphasised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that only when a senior is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, the employee, who is placed just below him in the order of seniority, can be considered for promotion and not till then. It is stated that this view is reinforced by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
(2 supra). The following observations in the decision are apposite:

".....With regard to promotion, the normal principles are either merit- cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority....." (paragraph 38)

A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court held in
N. Srinath v. State of Mysore
, 1972 SLR 449.

"Another aspect of the matter is that whether the promotion be on seniority-cum-merit basis or by selection, it is impossible to promote a junior without considering the case of a senior. In the case of the first type of promotions, it is obvious that a senior must be considered first and that when he is found unfit, the case of the next junior may be considered. In the second category of promotions, the Promoting Authority must consider a sufficient number of persons in the lower cadre or a number which, a relation to promotional vacancies to be filled, is reasonably sufficient, at the top of the lower cadre for consideration." (paragraph 13)

32. Those decisions are sought to be distinguished by the learned Counsel for the appellants as inapplicable to the facts of the present case on the ground that all those cases pertain to promotions to the posts in lower cadre.
In
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
(2 supra), it was a case of promotion from the post of Lower Division Clerk to that of Upper Division Clerk.

In
State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood
(10 supra), the promotion from the cadre of Junior Statistical Assistants and Progress Assistants to the posts of Senior Statistical Assistants was questioned.

In the other case decided by the Mysore High Court in
N. Srinath v. State of Mysore
, 1972 SLR 449. the promotion of a Lower Division Clerk to the post of Upper Division Clerk was questioned. Therefore, those decisions, according to the learned Counsel, cannot be applied in the instant case where promotion to a higher post of Area/Senior Manager, which is just below the highest executive post in the Bank viz., that of a General Manager, is called in question.

33. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, normal promotions from a lower post to a higher post are made either on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. If the former mode of promotion is adopted, the normal principle followed is, first the senior most eligible employee has to be tested to find out whether he possesses the minimum required merit for holding the higher post. Only if he is not found suitable or fit, his immediate junior may be tested for the purpose of promotion. But in the application of the latter principle of merit-cum-seniority, the seniority will be relevant only when merit is almost equal. In other words, in the application of that principle, the selection will be made purely on the basis of merit. But the same is not the case in the application of the former principle.

34. Even prior to the making of the Rules, the Central Government clarified how the posts of Area/Senior Managers in the Regional Rural Banks shall be filled up and how the principle of seniority-cum-merit shall be applied. This clarification was communicated by the Central Government to the Deputy General Manager of the National Bank in its letter dated October 10,1987. The relevant portion of that letter reads:

"It is, therefore, requested that the Chairmen of all the RRBs may be appriased that since the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers are promotional posts to be filled up 100% by promotion from only one source, the non-selection rule of seniority-cum-merit has to be applied. This rule envisages promotion by seniority with due consideration to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies that there is nothing against the officer. No disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonably recent past. The promotions are meant to be made on the above mentioned consideration."

Subsequent to that letter, the National Bank requested all the Regional Rural Banks to follow that principle. Though some correspondence is stated to have ensued between some of the Regional Rural Banks and the National Bank as to the desirability of not following the principle of seniority-cum-merit in promotion to the posts of Area/Senior Managers, the Central Government thought it fit to incorporate the same principle of seniority-cum-merit in the statutory rules framed by it for promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager. The position was clarified by the Central Government in October, 1987, as to what the principle of seniority-cum-merit envisages. That clarification is in conformity with the view expressed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
(2 supra) as to the meaning of the expression 'seniority-cum-merit'. Fully aware of the import of the principle of seniority-cum-merit, if the Central Government had adopted that principle for the purpose of promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager by framing a statutory rule, a Regional Rural Bank, which is bound by such a rule, cannot act in contravention of that principle and adopt an altogether new principle of merit-cum-seniority, which involves the process of selection.

35. It is, however, submitted by Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy that the Rules framed by the Central Government themselves envisage a process of selection as is evident from the mode of selection prescribed, which includes interview and assessment of performance. He has drawn our attention to the meaning of the word 'selection' as contained in various Dictionaries and states that the process of selection involves the choosing of one in preference to another or to take by preference from among others. By following the process of interview and performance appraisal, both the Banks wanted to select the candidates for the purpose of promotion by awarding marks to different criteria such as seniority, qualifications, interview and performance and such a method cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary.

36. A Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman, a Director nominated by the Reserve Bank, a Director nominated by the National Bank and a Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank is constituted in accordance with the Rules for the purpose of selection and to test the fitness/suitability/merit of a candidate for promotion. When such a body of high officials evaluates the merit of each candidate to test whether the candidate possesses the minimum merit required to be possessed by him to hold a higher post and ultimately selects the candidates, such a process of selection cannot be said to be violative either of the Rules or
Article 14
or
Article 16
of the Constitution of India.

37. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, both the Banks considered the cases of all the eligible officers for promotion to the posts of Area/Senior Managers. Only those who secured highest number of marks amongst them were ultimately promoted. This method of selection is contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It virtually amounts to the application of the principle of merit-cum-seniority. With the full knowledge of the implications of the principle of seniority-cum- merit, the Central Government incorporated the same in the statutory rules framed by it.
Section 17
of the Act provides that a Regional Rural Bank may appoint such number of Officers and other employees as it may consider necessary or desirable in such manner as may be prescribed and may determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. 'Prescribed' means prescribed by the Rules made under this Act. When the Central Government has made Rules under
Section 29
of the Act prescribing the method and manner of appointment/promotion of the officers and other employees of the Bank, a Regional Rural Bank is bound by those Rules and shall act strictly in accordance with those rules.

38. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that Sri D.V. Subba Reddy at Serial No. 76, who was the last person in the order of seniority amongst the Branch Managers of Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, was selected overlooking the claims of employees like Sri K.V.T. Prasanna Kumar, who was far more senior to Sri D.V. Subba Reddy, having been placed at Serial No. 12 in the order of seniority. It is further stated that though his work as Branch Manager was commended and no adverse entry was found in his confidential reports, still he was not promoted. So also, Sri D. Raja Reddy, who is at Serial No. 60 in the order of seniority amongst Managers (Branch Managers) was selected overlooking the claims of his seniors. This merely indicates that the Bank did not follow the principle of seniority-cum-merit, but made promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

39. We do not find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the respondents are estopped from questioning the selections made in the year 1989, as they had submitted themselves to the process of selection undertaken by the Banks and raised no objection at any point of time before the promotions were made. Having taken a chance and having not been selected, it is not open to them to challenge the process of selection. The principle that an employee cannot approbate and reprobate has no application in the present case. As we have already indicated, when the process of promotion is governed by statutory rules, the appointing authority is bound to make promotions in accordance with those Rules only and even if some of the employees acquiesce in a process of selection undertaken by the employer, which is contrary to the statutory rules, such acquiescence cannot legalise an otherwise illegal action of an employer.

40. With respect to Pinakini Grameena Bank, the Board of Directors of the Bank resolved at its meeting held on February 24,1992 that 22 out of 64 officers who would complete eight years of service by March 31,1992 shall be called for interview for promotion to the six posts of Area/Senior Managers. According to the Bank, these 22 officers are part of a batch of 64 officers who were recruited in the same batch and who joined service within a period of 5 months. 13 of them joined on November 21, 1983; 2 in the first week of December, 1983; 6before the end of 1983; 2 in January, 1984; one in February 1984 and 5 in April 1984. But four Officers who had completed 8 years of service by the date of interview, i.e., April 16, 1992, filed W.P. No. 4997 of 1992 on the file of this Court that the cut-off date shall be the date of interview i.e., April 16, 1992 and not March 31, 1992. It is stated that pursuant to an interim direction granted in that writ petition, those four officers were also called for interview, but their results were withheld. Ultimately five officers were selected for promotion. Out of them, four belong to O.C. category and one belongs to S.C. category. Their ranking in the order of seniority is 1, 4, 6, 8 and 16. The plea set up by the bank is that the length of service of the officers, who are considered for promotion, is almost the same. Their comparative merit has to be assessed for the purpose of selecting the required number of candidates for promotion even where promotion has to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, and therefore, in any event, this case cannot be compared with that of Rayalaseema Grameena Bank.
In support of this plea, the learned Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the following passage in the decision of the Supreme Court in
State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri
, :

"However, if the criterion for promotion is one of seniority-cum-merit, comparative merit may have to be assessed if length of service is equal or an outstanding junior is available for promotion. On the facts before us, there is no reason to regard the petitioner's eligibility on merit for Deputy Secretaryship to be denied or delayed when Venkataraman was promoted." (page 461 column 2)

The above principle applies where the length of service is equal. But in the present case, it cannot be said that the length of service is equal, as different officers were appointed on different dates. Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of this case.

41. It is, however, submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that when the promotions made to the posts of Area/Senior Managers for the year 1989 in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and for the year 1992 in Pinakini Grameena Bank are set aside, a consequential direction to pay arrears of salary to such of those seniors who may be selected later, from the date the vacancies in the posts of Area/Senior Managers had arisen, should have been given. We are unable to accept the contention in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. When the promotions are set aside, the proper course is to direct the Banks to make promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and not to give any other direction. When the promotions have to be made afresh, question of giving any direction either for payment of salary from the date the posts were created or for fixation of seniority in the higher post, will not arise. We therefore direct that both the Rayalaseerna Grameena Bank and the Pinakini Grameena Bank shall complete the process of promotions for filling up of the vacancies in the posts of Area/Senior Managers, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified only to the extent indicated above. In all other respects, the order of the learned single Judge remains in tact.

42. The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. But, there shall be no order as to costs.