ORDER This writ application, at the instance of UCO Bank Officers Congress, a Trade Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short the writ petitioner hereafter) against the promotion policy agreement made by the Bank Authorities disregarding the provisions contained in s. 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. 1970 (for short "the said Act" hereafter) and the regulations framed thereunder and in particular regulation 17 of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for brevity "the service regulations") and Circular No. CHO/POS/50/87 dated 8.10.1987 issued by the General Manager, Personnel, of the UCO Bank for circulation to all branches of the said Bank regarding promotion policy agreement for Officers of the said Bank was moved before this Court on March 18, 1988 when this Court issued a Civil Order and issued an Order of Injunction to the extent that the interview be held but the results shall not be published without the leave of the Court. 2. On May 19, 1988 the matter was heard in part and in view of the urgency involved in the matter this Court specially fixed the matter for hearing on May 21, 1988 at 10.30 A.M. 3. The facts of this case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is a body registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 having Registration No. 16902. The said Act came into force in the said bank with effect from 19th July, 1969. The said bank became corresponding new bank. The facts of this case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is a body registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 having Registration No. 16902. The said Act came into force in the said bank with effect from 19th July, 1969. The said bank became corresponding new bank. Sub-section (1) of s. 19 of the said Act reads thus;- "The Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank may after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any scheme made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the provisions of giving effect to the provisions of this Act." Sub-section (2) of s. 19 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power the regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters namely – (i) the conditions or limitations subject to which the corresponding new bank may appoint Advisors, Officers or other employees and fix their remunerations and other terms and conditions of service; (ii) the duties and conduct of Advisors, Officers or other employees of the corresponding new bank; (iii) the establishment and maintenance of superannuation, pension, provident or other funds for the benefit of officers or other employees of the corresponding new bank or of the dependants of such officers or other employees and the granting of superannuation allowances, annuties and pension payable out of such funds. 4. The said provisions provide for the duties and conduct of the officers of the corresponding new bank. The said bank in pursuance of s. 19 of the said Act framed UCO Bank Officers' Branch Regulations. The Service Regulation pursuant to s. 19 of the said Act was also framed. Promotion of officers come within the reach of Clause (d) of sub-s. (2) of s. 19 of the said Act and the promotion of officers is to be governed by the service regulations and not by any other mode, namely, bipartite agreement between the management and some of the officers' Union. 5. The Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations 1979 (revised upto 30.6.87) came into force on the 1st day of July, 1979. 6. 5. The Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations 1979 (revised upto 30.6.87) came into force on the 1st day of July, 1979. 6. The Regulation 2(1) and 2(2) of the Service Regulations, 1979 are quoted below: "2(1) These regulations shall apply to all Officers of the Bank and to such other employees of the Bank to whom they may be made applicable by the competent authority to the extent and subject to such conditions as such authority may decide. 2(2) They shall not apply to an officer during his tenure of service outside India or to employees engaged in any country outside India and serving there." 7. Definition of the guidelines of the Government as contained in Service guidelines is quoted below:- "Guidelines of the Government" shall mean such guidelines as may be issued by the Government and shall include the recommendations made in the Report of the Committee constituted by the Government Resolution No. F. 4(26)/72/IR dated 19th July, 1973 as accepted by Government together with modifications or alterations thereof as may, from time to time, have been or be made by the Government." 8. Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations, 1979 is as follows:- "17 (1) Promotions to all grades of officers in the bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any. 17(2) For the avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that this regulations shall also apply to promotions of any category of employees to the Junior management grade." 9. Regulation 18 of the Service Regulations, 1979 deals with seniority. 10. The following guidelines are issued by the Government in terms of proviso to regulation 17 of the Service Regulations, 1979;- (1) The Board shall formulate the eligibility criteria and details of process to be employed for promotion of officers from one scale/grade to another subject to the following provisions. This should be done not later than 9 months from the appointed date. Till such time as the new promotion policy is formulated, the Bank may, subject to the approval of the Board continue with the existing promotion practices. This should be done not later than 9 months from the appointed date. Till such time as the new promotion policy is formulated, the Bank may, subject to the approval of the Board continue with the existing promotion practices. (2) Subject to the availability of vacancies all promotions whether from one scale to another or one grade to another shall be on the basis of merit with weightages, if any, for seniority educational/professional qualifications, etc., as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. (3) The minimum eligibility in terms of number of years of service for one Officer's scale to another shall generally be as under :- (a) From Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade/Scale-II-7 years of satisfactory service in Junior Management Grade/Scale-I. Provided that the officer has put in a minimum of two years service in a rural branch. NOTE: The proviso to the above guidelines will become operative in respect of promotions to be made w.e.f. 1.6.1988. (b) From Middle Management Grade/Scale-II to Middle Management Grade/Scale-III-5 years of satisfactory service in Middle Management Grade/ Scale-II. Provided that the officer concerned has put in a minimum period of service of three years as an officer in a "rural" and/or "semi-urban" branch. NOTE: The proviso to the above guideline will become operative w.e.f. 1.6.1988. (c) From Middle Management Grade/Scale-III to senior Management Grade/Scale-IV-5 years of satisfactory service in Scale-III. (d) From Senior Management Grade/Scale-IV to Senior Management Grade/Scale-V-3 years of satisfactory service in Scale-IV. (e) From Senior Management Grade/Scale-V to Top Executive Grade/Scale-VI-2 years of satisfactory service in Scale-V. (f) From Top Executive Grade/Scale-VI to Top Executive Grade/Scale-VII-3 years of satisfactory service in Scale-VI. (4) The above eligibility criteria may be• relaxed suitably in case where the number of eligible officers is less than three times the number of posts available in the next higher/scale/grade. (4a) The number of persons to be considered for promotion from one scale to another shall normally be restricted to three or four times the number of posts for which promotions are being considered. Provided the Board of Directors may relax this criteria in exceptional circumstances after recording the reasons therefore in writing. (4a) The number of persons to be considered for promotion from one scale to another shall normally be restricted to three or four times the number of posts for which promotions are being considered. Provided the Board of Directors may relax this criteria in exceptional circumstances after recording the reasons therefore in writing. (5) All promotions to Senior Management Grade/Scale-V and Top Executive Grade/Scale-VI will be made by a committee of Directors consisting of the Managing Director, the Government Director and the Reserve Bank of India Director on the basis of the evaluation of the past performance and the assessment of the potential of the eligible officers by the said Committee. (6) There shall be no appeal against the decision of the Director's Promotion Committee. However, an officer aggrieved within a decision of the Director's Promotion Committee may make a representation to the said committee within a period of three months from the date on which the promotion was announced. The committee as soon as it may be and in any case not later than six months from the date of receipt of the representation consider the representation and review or modify its earlier decisions, if considered necessary. The decision of the committee shall be recorded in writing." 11. The guidelines as are detailed above, require four items as are given below;- The Board shall formulate the eligibility criteria and details of processes to be employed for promotion of officers from scale/grade to another, subject to the following provisions;- The eligibility criteria and details of processes for promotion shall be formulated not later than 6 months from the appointed date. The appointed date is 1st July, 1979. But no eligibility criteria and details of processes for promotions were formulated within six months from 1st July, 1979. 12. There was a promotion policy effected in the yen 1981 by the Board and the said promotion policy agreement of 1981 continued to remain in force till 16.9.87. 13. On September 16, 1987 new promotion policy agreement is said to have been approved by the Board. The new promotion policy was stated to have been formulated on 18th August, 1987 and the same was placed before the Board on 16.9.87 and the Board gave approval to the said promotion policy agreement. 14. Item no. 13. On September 16, 1987 new promotion policy agreement is said to have been approved by the Board. The new promotion policy was stated to have been formulated on 18th August, 1987 and the same was placed before the Board on 16.9.87 and the Board gave approval to the said promotion policy agreement. 14. Item no. 2 of the guidelines subject to the availability of vacancies all promotions shall be made on the basis of the following:- 1. Merit with weightages, if any, for seniority; 2. Educational/professional qualifications etc. as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. 15. The basis of promotion as laid down in the guidelines are as follows:- 1. Merit 2. Seniority 3. Qualifications. 16. 1981 promotion policy agreement was formulated and the marks were allotted in the following manner:- Movement Seniority Stagnation Professional Performance Job for service & Special knowledge in the scale. Qualifications. potential/Performance Appraisal. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) From Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale -II. 10 10 10 70 From Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Middle Management Grade Scale -III 10 - 10 80 From Middle Management Grade Scale-III to Senior Management Grade Scale -IV - - - 100 From Senior Management Grade Scale-IV to Senior Management Grade Scale -V - - - 100 From Senior Management Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale -VI - - - 100 From Top Executive Grade Scale VI to Top Executive Grade Scale -VII - - - 100 17. In the promotion policy agreement approved by the Board on 16th September, 1987 the following marks are allotted:- Movement Seniority for Qualification Performance Interview service in Appraisal the scale. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) From Junior Management Gr. Scale-I. 50 10 25 15 From Middle Management Gr. Scale-II 40 10 30 20 From Middle Management Gr. Scale-III 30 - 40 30 From Senior Management Gr. Scale-IV 20 - 50 30 From Senior Management Gr. Scale-V - - 60 40 From Top Executive Gr. Scale-VI to Top Executive Gr. Scale-VII - - 50 50 18. There is no mention of Interview Committee or any Committee in the promotion policy agreement of the year 1981. Promotion policy agreement dated 18th August, 1987 introduced, for the first time, the provisions for interview. Scale-V - - 60 40 From Top Executive Gr. Scale-VI to Top Executive Gr. Scale-VII - - 50 50 18. There is no mention of Interview Committee or any Committee in the promotion policy agreement of the year 1981. Promotion policy agreement dated 18th August, 1987 introduced, for the first time, the provisions for interview. In regulation 17 of the Service Regulations of 1979 or in the promotion policy agreement of 1981 or in the guidelines issued by the Central Government, the system of interview does not find place nor is there any mention of the same in the regulation, promotion policy agreement and the guidelines. The Bank Authorities reached an agreement with the two of officers' Union on 18th August, 1987. The Board of Directors is said to have considered the promotion policy agreement and also all other relevant aspects of the matter. Promotion Policy Agreement dated 18th August, 1987 was enforced without effectively securing the compliance of Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations and all the provisions as contained in s. 19 of the Service Regulation Act. Clause 20 of the Promotion Policy Agreement of 1987 contains, inter alia as follows :- "The provisions in this policy shall be subject to any guidelines, instructions, directives as may be issued by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India from time to time." 19. It is the case of the petitioner that the agreement reached between the management of the Bank and some other officers' Union is of no legal effect and the same is still subject to the guidelines instructions and directions issued from time to time by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India and that the petitioner being a representative of the officers feels aggrieved by the said actions of the respondents. The petitioner also filed supplementary affidavits and other relevant documents showing that the said petitioner is duly affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress and also filed annual return in Form H. This Court allowed the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit annexing all the documents. The respondent Bank authorities while presented affidavit-in-opposition sworn and affirmed by Mulki Rammohan Rao, General Manager (Personnel) of the said Bank, raised the preliminary objections. The basic objections of the Bank authorities may be summed up as follows :- 20. The respondent Bank authorities while presented affidavit-in-opposition sworn and affirmed by Mulki Rammohan Rao, General Manager (Personnel) of the said Bank, raised the preliminary objections. The basic objections of the Bank authorities may be summed up as follows :- 20. The Board of Directors of the Bank even without framing service regulations in terms of s. 19 of the said Act could, in exercise of its power of management, is authorised to lay down administratively the conditions of service of the employees including promotions to all grades of officers. However, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 19 of the said Act read with sub-s. (2) of S. 12 of the said Act, the Board of Directors in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government made on and from July 1, 1979 Service Regulations; that in the matter of framing of promotion policy from time to time there is no limitation on the power of the Board to frame such policy excepting that the Board has been enjoined to consider the Government guidelines, that since the framing of the said Regulation of 1979 the UCO Bank had declared two promotion policies for the officer one in the year 1981 and the other one in the year 1987 being in super-session of 1981 promotion policies effective from September 16, 1987. 21. In order to ensure consensus and to eliminate any possible grievances of the officers of the Bank w far the same were practicable, the Bank before declaring the policy discussed various issues connected with promotions with All India United Commercial Bank Officers' Federation and All India Federation of UCO Bank Officers, that the Bank followed a democratic principle in ensuring the maximum consensus of the officers in the matter of promotion policy, that the Board of Directors of the Bank had every right even unilaterally to declare such policy; that the writ petitioner 'a Trade Union' represents a miniscule of the total strength of the Officers of the of the Bank. The said two Associations represent 82% of the Officers of the Bank, the writ petitioners denied the claims of the two Association. The Bank authorities after consultation and negotiation reached an agreement with both the organisations on the promotion policy for Inter Scale promotion of officers. The said two Associations represent 82% of the Officers of the Bank, the writ petitioners denied the claims of the two Association. The Bank authorities after consultation and negotiation reached an agreement with both the organisations on the promotion policy for Inter Scale promotion of officers. The said understanding was placed before the Board, which after deliberation laid down the promotion policy at its meeting held on 16.9.87. The writ petitioner according to the Bank has one percent representation of the officers in the Bank. The writ petitioner claimed that it has substantial strength of the officers. 22. The promotion policy had been laid down by the Board of Directors as required by Regulation 17 of the said Regulations after having taken into consideration the Government guidelines in this regard and before laying down such policy the Bank authorities wanted to ascertain the views of the officers, through their representative unions or Associations in this regard, that no legal right either of the petitioner or of any of the officers of the Bank could be said to have been infringed by the said process, that there is scope for bilateral discussion with some of the officers' Unions for framing of promotion policy of the Bank. The condition of service of the officer/employees of the Bank with regard to promotion would be in accordance with such policies which might be declared by the bank from time to time. Section 19(2)(d) of the said Act has not plot any limitation on the power of the Board of Directors to frame such policy or on the processes to be followed in laying down such policies. The promotion policy of 1987 had taken into consideration the existing Government guidelines in this regard. It has been also provided in the said promotion policy that it would be subject to any further guidelines which might be issued by the Central Government or Reserve Bank of India. The Promotion Policy as declared in the year 1987 had made reference to the Government guidelines and had adopted the said criteria as laid down in the Government guidelines. The Board of Directors of the respondent Bank had approved the said eligibility criteria as the criteria for promotion and as such it is wrong to allege that the Government criteria had not been followed for determining the eligibility of the officers for promotion. The Board of Directors of the respondent Bank had approved the said eligibility criteria as the criteria for promotion and as such it is wrong to allege that the Government criteria had not been followed for determining the eligibility of the officers for promotion. The promotion policy as declared in 1987 had legal force. The promotion policy declared in 1987 had clearly stated that the seniority of the officers should be determined on All India basis and in accordance with Regulation 18. The Bank, therefore, in declaring the promotion policy had not deviated from any statutory provisions relating to determination of seniority and as such it could not be said that the said promotion policy was null and void or had no legal force. 23. Due weightages for seniority had been given in certain grades of promotion. Clause 8 of the said policy deals with the constitution of committee for interviewing the officers and the basis on which such interview is to be taken. 24. The promotion policy had allotted the marks for the four factors for promotion and interview being one of the factors, marks had been specified for such interview and it varies from scale to scale. 25. There is need of submission of performance appraisal for judging the merit of a person. The writ petitioner had tried to project the shortcoming of the performance appraisal. This performance appraisal system as formulated by the Bank had been generally recognised as a modem management technique for judging the merit of an officer. The Bank as a policy had decided to follow a system for judging the merit of the officers for the purpose of promotion and the writ petitioner could not question the propriety of such a policy of the Bank. The performance appraisal form had been formulated in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 19 of the said Act or in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government under Regulations 17 or that the Form is not liable to be declared null and void. 26. In terms of the promotion agreement policy for officers, 1987 performance appraisal system in vogue is to be taken into account to effect promotion. 26. In terms of the promotion agreement policy for officers, 1987 performance appraisal system in vogue is to be taken into account to effect promotion. In order to get sufficient number of officers for consideration for promotion the Bank sought permission from the Government in regard to relaxation in the length of service required of an officer for becoming eligible for promotion to the next higher grades/services. However, the Ministry of Finance, wrote a letter to the Bank dated 18th September, 1987 advising certain guidelines under Regulation 17, thereby the relaxation limit had been restricted to 6 months/1 year according to the scales. In view of this limitation it was observed that against the vacancies declared in Scale II, III and IV, the number of officers available who had completed the requisite period of service in their respective scale were much below 3 times the vacancies declared. Even after relaxation of one year, in the length of service, the availability position did not change appreciably. Having regard to have a larger zone of consideration it was decided to change the cut off date from 31.12.87 to 31.10.87, details whereof are given below: Vacancies in posts In Scale No. of No. of No. of officers other than Chief Officers Officers eligible after Cashiers available available relaxation of 1 year without with and shifting of cut off relaxation relaxation date. of 1 year. 600 II 1510 2188 2320 200 III 370 370 1495 35 IV 16 16 557 27. The cut off date of awarding marks for various factors remains unchanged. Since the performance reports are raised annually on calendar year basis, there was no scope for raising reports as of 31.10.87 and even if the reports raised for the calendar year, 1987 are taken the process would have been delayed to a considerable extent. The process is a time consuming factor. The performance reports for 3 years till 1986 were taken into consideration for determining promotion, the other allied factors namely the marks for seniority qualification etc, are also restricted to 31/12/86 only. In the previous promotion policy there was no mark for interview. However, interview was one of the factors in the Merit channel. 28. The performance reports for 3 years till 1986 were taken into consideration for determining promotion, the other allied factors namely the marks for seniority qualification etc, are also restricted to 31/12/86 only. In the previous promotion policy there was no mark for interview. However, interview was one of the factors in the Merit channel. 28. The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service or of promotion is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job and having regard to the promotional avenues available for the officers in the Bank, selection based on merit is required to be ensured for useful and efficient public service. Having regard to such a background, the Bank had introduced the system of interview. It would be evident from the promotion policy agreement that in the higher scales higher marks bad been allotted for such interview as the objective is to select the best persons in the higher posts. 29. The Bank authorities while referring the order being No. CHO/POS/9/88 dated 9.2.88 which, inter alia, also refer to the decision of the Board of Directions taken at the meeting held on 7.12.87 to the following effect :- "1) The minimum length of service for promotion from Scale I, II and III may be relaxed by one year. 2) In all the cases for inter-scale promotion eligible officers equivalent to 4 times the number of vacancies be considered except in promotion from SMG scale IV to SMG Scale IV where apart from relaxing the eligibility by one year, the Bank may consider an additional 30 officers beyond 4 times the number of vacancies." 30. Reference has also been made to the Circular being No. CHO/POS/8/88 dated 5.2.88 issued by the Deputy General Manager. The subject matter of the said circular is the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance• under Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations. The guidelines is contained in Annexure I to the said circular dated 5.2.88. 31. The writ petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply and also supplementary affidavit. The st1nd taken by the Bank Authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition and in the supplementary affidavit is strongly denied and opposed by the petitioner in its reply. The fundamental averments as would appear from the reply are, inter alia, as follows:- 32. 31. The writ petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply and also supplementary affidavit. The st1nd taken by the Bank Authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition and in the supplementary affidavit is strongly denied and opposed by the petitioner in its reply. The fundamental averments as would appear from the reply are, inter alia, as follows:- 32. The writ petitioner represents a good number of officers engaged in the Bank and the contention of the Bank Authorities that the writ petitioner has only 1% representation of the officers in the Bank is without any factual and legal foundation; and that the views of the officers have not been ascertained. The Bank has not entered into talks with the petitioner; that the claim of the Bank seeking' to ensure consensus and to eliminate any possible relsonable grievances of the officers is untenable and thereby the Bank has followed a pick and choose policy in selecting the Trade Unions for consultation. The promotion policy of the Bank was laid down in the agreement arid the same has been declared as the promotion policy of the Bank. 33. The Affidavit-in-reply and the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner further present objections of fundamental in nature. The law prescribed the limitation within which the Board has to function for laying down the promotion policy, but the Board has ignored the said limitation and the promotion policy laid down in the agreement has been accepted. 34. The power of the Board is limited by the following:- (i) Provisions of the Act, (ii) Provisions of the Regulations; and (iii) Guidelines of the Central Government. 35. The Bank has not followed any of them in the matter of promotion of the officer. The Bank entered into agreement with some of the officers' Union or Officers Association and in the said agreement, promotion policy was laid down. 36. The eligibility criteria and the promotion processes were laid down in the agreement reached between the Management and the Officers' Associations. The Board never laid down the promotion policy. 37. The performance Appraisal Form is wholly illegal and that different clauses thereof which are required to be filled in will put the officers in great difficulty. The Bank has about 1750 Branches and about 12,000 officers out of which about half are scale-I officers. The deposit mobilisation and advance giving cannot be made the factors for merit test. 37. The performance Appraisal Form is wholly illegal and that different clauses thereof which are required to be filled in will put the officers in great difficulty. The Bank has about 1750 Branches and about 12,000 officers out of which about half are scale-I officers. The deposit mobilisation and advance giving cannot be made the factors for merit test. The question of branches being in poor area or in rural area where deposit mobilisation will be nominal and advances will be very negligible has not been considered. 38. Bank service folders are maintained and from the service folders assessment of merit can be made. Introduction of performance Appraisal Form has worked out grave difficulty and inconvenience to the officers. 39. All India United Commercial Officers Federation is one of the signatories to the Promotional Policy Agreement. Supplementary Affidavit was sworn and affirmed on May 19, 1933 by the petitioner. No officer who appeared at the interview was in a position to know as to what comments and/or observations were made against him in the Performance Appraisal Reports of the 1984, 1985 and 1986. It is more peculiar that in the Circular No. CHO/POS/50/87 dated 3.10.87 the following statement was made:- "To facilitate the Interviewing panel, the eligible candidates are expected to bring alone with them a Performance Appraisal Regarding their achievements made during the year 1937." 40. Each candidate was asked to bring in a closed cover, a copy of duly filled Performance Appraisal setting out important achievement in 1987 duly commented upon by the Reporting Officer for the use of the Interview Committee. The direction to bring Performance Appraisal Form is not authorised by the Promotional Policy Agreement. 41. For Promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II about 2367 candidates were interviewed from 14.3.89 to 26 3.88 by two interview Boards. In Calcutta during the aforesaid period two interviews were held in which about 550 candidates appeared. 19.8.88 being Saturday Interview was held upto 1 P.M. On 20.3.88 no interview was held 26.3.88 being Saturday Interview was held upto 1 P.M. The hours of interview are mentioned herein-below :- On week days 11 A.M. to 1 P.M. and 3 P.M. to 5 P.M. 4 hours. Total hours for interview were 48 hours and 2 Boards took interview as a result of which 88 hours were taken for interviewing about 550 candidates by 2 Boards. 42. Total hours for interview were 48 hours and 2 Boards took interview as a result of which 88 hours were taken for interviewing about 550 candidates by 2 Boards. 42. That for promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III Interview was held for 2 hours. On 10.2.83. On 20.2.88 for 4 hours. On 21.2.88 for 4 hours. On 22.2.83 for 4 hours. On 23.4.88 for 2 hours. On 25.4.88 for 4 hours. On 26.4.88 for 4 hours. On 27.4.88 for 4 hours. On 28.4.88 for 4 hours. About 400 candidates were interviewed by one Interview Board during the aforesaid hours. 43. Although in the Service Regulations as well as in s. 19 of the Act there is no provision for review, yet in the promotion policy agreement there is a clause that after interview there will be further review by the Competent Authority. 44. The questions were asked on Biology, Anthoropology, Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, etc. Arun Kumar Ray, the deponent of the Supplementary Affidavit appeared for an interview and he was asked a question as to whether Amitabh Bachchan will win the Election at the Allahabad Parliamentary Constituency if he offers himself as a candidate." 45. Grave discrimination according to the writ petitioner has been perpetrated in the following manner :- Officers belonging to Scale III who were called for interview were 218. They were called for interview for promotion to Scale-IV. Total vacancies declared in Scale IV are 47. If four times are called for interview the total number comes to 188. But an additional 30 officers were also called for interview on the alleged grounds that they were superseded in the light of promotional process. In the last promotion process altogether 63 candidates were superseded in Scale III officers which will appear from the seniority list as of 31.12.1986. The details of vacancies declared in scales II, III & IV on three different occasions were given in paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Affidavit. The Interview letter being Annexure A to the Supplementary Affidavit reads thus: "Shri A.K. Roy (PEM No. 7381) dated February 18, 1988. The details of vacancies declared in scales II, III & IV on three different occasions were given in paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Affidavit. The Interview letter being Annexure A to the Supplementary Affidavit reads thus: "Shri A.K. Roy (PEM No. 7381) dated February 18, 1988. UCO Bank Seniority No. 921 Calcutta Main Office Dear Sir, Re: Interview for promotion to MMG Scale-III" You are requested to present yourself before the Interview Committee on 22nd April 1988 at 2 P.M. in connection with your promotion to next higher grade-scale at the address given below :- 12, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700 001. Please note the following points and instructions for your information and compliance. i) In terms of para 3 clause 8 of promotion policy for officers as circulated vide CHO/POS/50/87 dated 8th October, 1987, you must bring in a closed cover a copy of duly filled performance Appraisal setting out your important achievement in 1987 duly commented upon by the Reporting Officer for the use of Interview Committee. ii) Please ensure that you have submitted property return as of 31.12.1987 as required in terms of SCL No. 15/83 dated 22.1.83 before you appear for interview. iii) You should produce this letter at the time of interview when you will be required to furnish your signature against your nan4e in the list of candidates for the purpose of identification. iv) In case you are a local candidate, no payment on any account, whatsoever, will be made to you for appearing in the interview. In case you are an outstation candidate, you will be reimbursed travelling expenses as applicable as per rules and you may obtain from your branch office an advance towards such travelling expenses you should submit the TA Bill immediately on your return to headquarters so that the advance may be adjusted at the earliest." 46. Performance Appraisal Form is defective. Respondent duly filed affidavit-in-opposition to the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner. The said Affidavit-in-opposition was sworn and affirmed by one Shri Moolky Rammohan Rao. The stand taken in the supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner was seriously resisted by the Bank Authorities in the said Affidavit-in-opposition. The Bank, also raised picas which may be summarised as follows :- 47. Respondent duly filed affidavit-in-opposition to the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner. The said Affidavit-in-opposition was sworn and affirmed by one Shri Moolky Rammohan Rao. The stand taken in the supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner was seriously resisted by the Bank Authorities in the said Affidavit-in-opposition. The Bank, also raised picas which may be summarised as follows :- 47. The new promotion policy envisages that the selection for higher scales would be based on evaluation of an officer by awarding marks under four factors, two of which are Performance Appraisal and Interview. It is also envisaged that in the promotion processes to be initiated during the year 1987, Performance Appraisal Report as raised upto 31st December, 1986 would be considered. 48. The new promotion policy has incorporated a system whereunder eligible candidates are expected to bring along with them the Performance Appraisal Report of their achievement during the year 1987. The above provision enables the candidates to bring to the notice of the Interview Panel his significant achievements made during the year 1987, which might not get reflected if only the performance of three earlier years are reckoned. Secondly by introducing this system, the interview panel is able to direct its questions on the achievements of the officer in the background of his experience and work handled. The form is devised in such a manner that the interview is purposeful and the candidates interviewed are also put at case. 49. In view of the fact, that a large number of vacancies are declared and the total candidates for consideration are well over 2000/-, the bank had the necessity to form different Interview Panels to avoid different standards being applied to the jeopardy of the candidates competing at different centres. The Promotion Policy Agreement envisages that competent authority, if found necessary, review the marks awarded, both in performance and interview so that a uniform standard is maintained and no candidate is handicapped by strict evaluation by one or an indulgent evaluation by the other. Section 19 of the said Act only provides for a delegated legislation it is for the Bank to lay down the promotion policy taking into account all the relevant factors. The promotion policy laid down by the Bank has taken the views of the majority of the officers through the representative of two Officers' organisations. Section 19 of the said Act only provides for a delegated legislation it is for the Bank to lay down the promotion policy taking into account all the relevant factors. The promotion policy laid down by the Bank has taken the views of the majority of the officers through the representative of two Officers' organisations. As per the latest figures available the two officers' organisations representing nearly 29% of the officers. The officers did not find anything unreasonable or unacceptable for incorporating the above provisions for review. 50. In any event the petitioners union which represent only 1.5% (as per the latest figures available) of the total strength of the officers/employees of the Bank cannot question the said system as arbitrary ad hoc or unheard of as the majority officers duly accepted the system. 51. The total officers in the bank being 9014 as on 31st December, 1987 National Federation of UCO Bank officers to which the petitioner is affiliated to, has membership as per check-off system. Sri Arun Ray, the petitioner has no locus standi. 52. Sri V.P. Dube, Assistant General Manager, Vigilance who was in the Interview Board which interviewed Sri. Arun Ray, the deponent aforesaid, has affirmed a separate affidavit attaching the questions asked by the Interview Committee in so far as the deponent in concerned. 53. The Bank anthorities also produced statistics a copy whereof is annexed to the said Affidavit-in-opposition in respect of Unions/Associations Membership as on 31.12.1987 (provisional Estimates). Sl. Name of the Officers Membership Name of the Industry. No. Association/workmen's strength of Union in the Bank. the Association 1 2 3 4 1. All India United Commercial Bank, Officers' Federation. 5122 AIBOC 2. All India Federation of United Commercial Bank Officers' 2944 AIFOA 3. National Federation of United Commercial Bank Officers 77 INBOC 4. National Federation of United Commercial Bank Officers 44 INTUC 5. All India United Commercial Bank Officers' Organisation 9 NOBO 6. All India United Commercial Bank Officers' Federation - AIROBOF 7. Others 131 'Including 102 Officers who are members of Workmen's Union. 8. Officer Employees With Dual Membership not included above 4 - 9. Non- Unionised Officers not 683 Includes 337 officers included above. whose membership is not known. 10. Total 9011 Excludes 23 axpatriate officers servicing eborad. 54. All India United Commercial Bank Officers' Federation - AIROBOF 7. Others 131 'Including 102 Officers who are members of Workmen's Union. 8. Officer Employees With Dual Membership not included above 4 - 9. Non- Unionised Officers not 683 Includes 337 officers included above. whose membership is not known. 10. Total 9011 Excludes 23 axpatriate officers servicing eborad. 54. The added respondent All India United Commercial Bank Officers' Federation (for Short AIBOC) also produced before this Committee Form 'H' which is to be filed under s.28 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 read with Regulation 18 of the Bengal-Trade Union Rules, 1927. The following figures would appear from the said Form 'H' Sl. No. 1984 21. Number of members on books at the beginning of the year. 1015 22. Number of members admitted during the year. 50 23. Number of members who left during the year. 83 24. Numbers of members on books at the end of the year (i.e. on 31st December, 1984) 982 1985 25. Number of members on books at the beginning of the year 982 25. Number of members who left during the year 32 26. Number of members admitted during the year 32 27. Number of members on books at the end of the year (i.e. on 31st December, 1985) 982 1986 21. Number of members on books at the beginning of the year 982 22. Number of members who left during the year 33 23. Number of members admitted during the year 117 24. Number of members on books at the end of the year (i.e. on 31st December, 1986) 1066 1987 55. The writ petitioner filed Form-H. Relevant particular of the members are given below;- 21. Number of members on books at the beginning of the year 480 22. Number of members who left during the year 12 23. Number of members admitted during the year 83 24. Number of members on books at the end of the year (i.e. on 31st December, 87) 551. 56. In the background of the factual matrix as cast in the writ petition, Mr. Bholanath Sen, the learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Ranjit Mukherjee, learned Advocate opened the case and referred to Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations and also referred to Clause 3 of the Promotion Policy Agreement of 1981 which as quoted by Mr. 56. In the background of the factual matrix as cast in the writ petition, Mr. Bholanath Sen, the learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Ranjit Mukherjee, learned Advocate opened the case and referred to Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations and also referred to Clause 3 of the Promotion Policy Agreement of 1981 which as quoted by Mr. Sen stands superseded by the Promotion Policy Agreement w.e.f. 16th September, 1987 as circulated by Circular No. CHO/POS/50/87 dated October 8, 1987. While challenging the promotion policy agreement Mr. Sen referred to page 36 of the Officers' Appraisal Performance Form. Mr. Sen seriously urged that the said agreement is vitiated by illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The Promotion Policy Agreement of the year, 1987 according to Mr. Sen is an attempt to give a complete go-bye to Clauses (a) and (b) as contained in Annexure-V at page 80 of the Brochure. Mr. Sen also referred to page 2 of the Promotion Policy Agreement and also refers to various Clauses of the Promotion Policy Agreement effected on September 16, 1987. Mr. Sen specially laid emphasis on the pages 1 and 2 of the Brochure as circulated under Memo No. CHO/POS/50/87 dated October 8, 1987, the relevant portion whereof as duly pinpointed by Mr. Sen are quoted below :- ACTION POINTS "(1) Officers are advised to go through the enclosed promotion policy carefully (2) Officers are advised to submit their Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1984, 1985 and 1986, if not already submitted within 3 days of receipt of this Circular. 57. Mr. Sen seriously ctiticized that the performance apprsial form as contained in the promotion policy agreement of the year 1987 to be brought before the Interview Committee as reference does not require the Reporting Officer to consider the details as (a) Lack of Punctuality, (b) Poor leave record (c) Indiscipline/Discourtesy/Irresponsibility, (d) Heavy indebtedness, (e) Heavy drunkenness to the extent prejudicial to the Bank's interest and. image, (f) Doubtful integrity and (g)0 Any other. 58. Mr. Sen further assailed the Promotion Policy Agreement by referring to Clauses 3(5), 3(6) and 3(9) which are set out below :- "3.5. The policy is primarily based on "Merit" as well as "Seniority-cum-Merit". Merit can be said to consist of three components, viz.- (a) Performance - Quantitative achievement of results as also the qualitative aspect-How the results are achieved. Mr. Sen further assailed the Promotion Policy Agreement by referring to Clauses 3(5), 3(6) and 3(9) which are set out below :- "3.5. The policy is primarily based on "Merit" as well as "Seniority-cum-Merit". Merit can be said to consist of three components, viz.- (a) Performance - Quantitative achievement of results as also the qualitative aspect-How the results are achieved. (b) Knowledge - Of job, facts and information relevant to the performance of tasks at each level. (c) Potentiality - Wide ranging personal characteristic and skills which an individual brings to bear on the performance of job. 3.6. Five factors have been identified as relevant for promotion decision. They are – (a) Seniority and stagnation in Scale-I (b) Professional/Special Qualification (c) Performance (d) Job knowledge and (e) Potential. In the policy, the weight ages for the above five factors have been fixed in such a way as to sub-serve the basic objectives as laid down in para 3.3 above. 3.9. For assessment of performance, job knowledge and potential of the Officers in the Bank, a new performance appraisal system (details as per Annexure I) is being introduced. Every effort has been made to make the performance appraisal system as objective as possible. The ratings given to each Officer in the latest performance appraisal shall form the basis of evaluation of the performance, job knowledge and potential of the Officer considered for promotion". 59. Reference to Part-III at page 40 of the Promotion Policy Agreement was also made by Mr. Sen but after relying upon the said Part-III, Section-4 for Appraisal of officer by Reporting Officer/Reviewing Authority. Mr. Sen claimed and contended that the reporting and the reviewing officers are required to consider the following appraisal heads which are quoted below :- Appraisal of Officers by Reporting Officer/Reviewing Authority Appraisal Head Brief & precise comments by Reporting Officer with facts and figures to the extent relevant and feasible (please use separate sheet, if needed) 1 : 1. JOB PERFORMANCE: (In main areas of work and responsibility) 1.1. Business Performance 1.2. General Administration and control Division/Branch /Office Dtt./Cell/Section etc. 1.3. Staff Management 104. Quality of work performance and work management 1.5. Customer Service 1.6. Any other (please specify) 2. JOB KNOWLEDGE & SKILL: 2.1. Knowledge of Banking law and practice 2.2. Knowledge of Bank's procedures 2.3. Knowledge and skills in regard to specific areas of work performed and related work. 2.4. General Administration and control Division/Branch /Office Dtt./Cell/Section etc. 1.3. Staff Management 104. Quality of work performance and work management 1.5. Customer Service 1.6. Any other (please specify) 2. JOB KNOWLEDGE & SKILL: 2.1. Knowledge of Banking law and practice 2.2. Knowledge of Bank's procedures 2.3. Knowledge and skills in regard to specific areas of work performed and related work. 2.4. Knowledge of Bank's Policies/procedures/ schemes/rules, etc. in specific areas of work performed and related work 2.5. Any other skill (please specify) 3. PERSONAL QUALITIES/CHARACTERISTICS: 3.1. Power of expression-Oral and written. 3.2. Relations & skill with customers, staff and superiors 3.3. Planning and Organisation 3.4. Grasping power and intelligence 3.5. Initiative and dependability 3.6. Decision making ability 3.7. Adaptability 3.8. Ability to work under adverse circumstances 3.9. Any other (please specify) Period for which the Appraisee Period for which the Appraisee Officer has Officer has worked under Reporting worked under the jurisdiction of the Officer. Reviewing Authority. From To From To Signature of Reporting Officer Remarks of Review Authority, if any: Name Signature of Review Authority Designation Name Designation For use at Head Office only Moderation by High Level Committee Total Marks after moderation, if any: Remarks, if any Signature 60. Thereafter, Mr. Sen also highlighted the list of components of subheads of the Main Head indicating aspects to be appraised referred to in pages 42 and 43 of the promotion policy agreement which are set out below :- List of Components of Sub Heads of the Main Head Indicating Aspects to be Appraised. APPRAISAL HEADS: 1. JOB PERFORMANCE 1.1. BUSINESS PERFORMANCE 1.1.1. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Evaluation to cover growth trends and efforts made during the period under review- (a) Deposit Moblisation (b) Agricultural Advances (c) SSI and other Priority Sector Advances (d) Identification of untapped potential and tapping it (e) Organisation of business development companies, Camps, etc. (f) Formulation of new scheme 1.1.2. QUALITY OF BUSINESS SECURED: Evaluation to cover : (a) Whether deposits received are for temporary period or reasonably long period. (b) Whether deposits are institutional or form public in general. (c) Type of deposits secured (d) Whether advances made are risky or reasonably safe 1.1.3. RECOVERY AND OVER DUES: Evaluation to cover position of : (i) Recovery (ii) Overdues (iii) Issue of timely reminders for recovery and other recovery efforts. 1.2. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF DIVISION/ BRANCH/OFFICE/DEPARTMENT/CELL/SECTION ETC. (b) Whether deposits are institutional or form public in general. (c) Type of deposits secured (d) Whether advances made are risky or reasonably safe 1.1.3. RECOVERY AND OVER DUES: Evaluation to cover position of : (i) Recovery (ii) Overdues (iii) Issue of timely reminders for recovery and other recovery efforts. 1.2. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF DIVISION/ BRANCH/OFFICE/DEPARTMENT/CELL/SECTION ETC. Evaluation to cover position regarding – (a) Balancing of books (b) Submission of returns (c) Expeuditure control (d) Maintenance of books and records (e) Control over securities, valuable documents (f) Control over branch/office routine. (g) Rectification of Audit objections/irregularities (h) Follow-up, supervision and control of advances (i) Follow up of entries in Suspense Accounts (j) General Supervision and control over work entrusted to the Officer. 1.3. STAFF MANAGEMENT: Evaluation to cover- (a) Control over overtime (b) Discipline in the branch/office (c) Proper allocation of duties (d) Manpower Planning (e) Handling of Industrial Relations (f) Manpower development, job rotation and training 1.4. QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMANCE AND WORK MANAGEMENT: Evaluation to cover – (a) Methodicity of work and work organisation (b) Accuracy in work (c) Neatness in work (d) Work efficiency and quality of output (e) Innovations in procedures (f) Arrears and delays in disposal of work performed (g) Ordering of priorities (h) Promptness in disposal of correspondence (i) Contribution in business development efforts (j) Contribution to policy formulation, planning, organising and control 1.5. CUSTOMER RESERVICE : Evaluation to cover - (a) Customer complaints and their handling (b) Efficiency in customer service (c) Innovation •in customer service. 61. The Interview Board according to Mr. Sen could not have the opportunity of the assessing the merits of the candidates the basic requirements engrafted in the self-appraisal form as are detailed above were completely left outside the zone of consideration. Mr. Sen referred to Clause (7) of the Promotion Policy Agreement of 1987 which is set out below :- "Performance marks will be awarded through performance appraisal system in force from time to time which would be average of marks obtained in the last 3 annual assessments. For promotion process to be initiated during 1987, performance appraisal reports raised upto 31/12/86 will be considered" 62. After referring to the said Clause (7), Mr. For promotion process to be initiated during 1987, performance appraisal reports raised upto 31/12/86 will be considered" 62. After referring to the said Clause (7), Mr. Sen argued that the entire procedure of the annual assessments without disclosure thereof to the concerned candidate or employee would otherwise have the effect of demoralisation in the service of officers of the Bank. Clauses (8) and (9) also referred to by Mr. Sen are also set out below:- "8. The interview of officers from one scale to higher scale below scale V will he by a Committee is to be formed by the Chairman & Managing Director. The Chairman & Managing Director may form as many Committees as are necessary depending on the number of officers to be interviewed. Promotion to Senior Management Grade Scale-V and above will be made by a Committee of Directors consisting of the Managing Director, Government Director and Reserve Bank of India Director as envisaged in para 4 above. For the promotions to be effected in 1987 in terms of this policy, the eligible Officers shall bring with them a performance appraisal setting out their important achievements in 1987. The interview Committee will utilise this as reference during their interview (Proforma of the Appraisal form is enclosed)" "9. The Competent Authority appointed under Regulation 14 of UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 may review the marks awarded for performance and interview (Details about Competent Authority are given in the Appendix)" 63. Review not having been provided for in Service Regulations 1979 and also 1981 Promotion Policy Agreement confers element of adhocism and arbitrariness. Promotion Policy agreement cannot be equated with the Regulation. The exercise of power of review must be a creature of statute. By bilateral and bi-partite agreement, the power of review cannot be conferred upon the Competent Authority. In the absence of the power of review in the Service Regulation framed in pursuance of s. 19 of the said Act, the review is bound to give rise to conferment of arbitrary exercise of power in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Apart from above, the promotion policy agreement, as seriously commented upon by Mr. Sen, being a purely stop-gap measure without proper checks and balances is also invalid illegal and unconstitutional as the same is arbitrary to the core. Mr. Apart from above, the promotion policy agreement, as seriously commented upon by Mr. Sen, being a purely stop-gap measure without proper checks and balances is also invalid illegal and unconstitutional as the same is arbitrary to the core. Mr. Sen referred to the following judgments of the Supreme Court :- Amar Kant Choudhary v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 531 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487 Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1622 64. Mr. Sen also referred to the following judgment of the Supreme Court National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan AIR 1983 SC 75 . 65. Introduction of interview without any guidelines being attached to it shall give rice to arming the authorities with the lethal weapon of arbitrariness, nepotism, favouritism. No basis could be found in the promotion policy agreement as to how and in what manner the interview would be conducted and what are the forms to be applied for judging the merit of the concerned candidate. 66. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Subrata Ray and Mr. Amalendu Mitra while resisting the pleas of Mr. Sen initiated his submissions by contending infer alia, that the entire arguments of Mr. Sen are wholly destructive of the rights of the petitioner. The submission of Mr. Sen, according to Mr. Mukherjee is wholly inconsistent with and/or contrary to the basic grievances of the petitioner as alleged in the writ application. Mr. Mukherjee contended the subject matter of the challenge of the writ application is against the Promotion Policy Agreement and foundation of challenge is the negotiation and consultation with the two Unions which ultimately resulted in passing of the Promotion Policy Agreement, and Mr. Mukherjee joined the issue on the question of Mr. Sen's submission that the writ petitioner should have been consulted. Mr. Mukherjee assailed such stand of Mr. Sen on the ground that the writ petitioner did not raise the grievance that it ought to have been taken into consultation nor there was any such grievance raised by the writ petitioner as it did not have any representative character or lacus standi to represent the officers engaged and employed in the said Bank. 67. Mr. Sen on the ground that the writ petitioner did not raise the grievance that it ought to have been taken into consultation nor there was any such grievance raised by the writ petitioner as it did not have any representative character or lacus standi to represent the officers engaged and employed in the said Bank. 67. Mr. Mukherjee in extension of his submission urged as to how and why the petitioner was not taken into consultation as the writ petitioner enjoyed minuscule strength of the officers and the two unions representing 89% of the officers were duly taken into consultation which is the foundation of the agreement. 68. Thereafter Mr. Mukherjee referred to the Check off system. Check off system as is prevailing in the Bank authorises the Bank authorities to deduct some money on account of subscription to be payable to the Unions from the salary of the officers. The Bank duly accepted the doctrine of consultative interest and held consultation and negotiation with 89% officers represented by the two Unions. Thereafter, Mr. Mukherjee urged that the writ petitioner could not cavil of the actions in affecting the promotion policy agreement as it did not have any locus standi even to represent 10% of the officers engaged in the Bank. 69. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that no consultation is warranted in the facts of this case and the Bank Authorities are not required to consult the writ petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee referred to paragraph 6 read with Ground III of the writ petition. Regulation does not otherwise provide for any scope of consultation. Mr. Mukherjee claimed that for the sake of argument if it is assumed the consultation has not been made in the instant case even then the consultation does not require each and every individual should be taken into consultation in a situation where the vast majority of the employees were duly taken into consultation by way of holding bi-partite sittings with the two Unions having absolute majority. Both the Unions agreed to the policy of the Bank. It is, according to Mr. Mukherjee, sufficient that if the Bank held consultations with two unions representing the vast majority of the employees. It was contended by Mr. Mukherjee that petitioner's right has neither been adversely affected nor taken away or abridged. The will of 89% automatically outweigh the will of 11%. Mr. It is, according to Mr. Mukherjee, sufficient that if the Bank held consultations with two unions representing the vast majority of the employees. It was contended by Mr. Mukherjee that petitioner's right has neither been adversely affected nor taken away or abridged. The will of 89% automatically outweigh the will of 11%. Mr. Mukherjee referred to the decision of Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman AIR 1986 SC 1830 in support of his contention. In service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every individual and its constitutionality have to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortune of some individuals is not the touchstone of the promotion policy agreement. Mr. Mukherjee also presented that in the instant case where 89% of the officers duly accepted the promotional policy agreement 11 % could not have any say in the matter. 70. Mr. Mukherjee submitted by referring to page 2 of the promotional policy agreement that the contention of Mr. Sen was that 1987 promotional policy agreement is improper and invalid and the same is liable to be struck down being violative of Articles, 14 and 16 and such contention of Mr. Sen could not be accepted, as because in 1981 policy there are two channels of promotion one is seniority-cum-merit and the other was merit. A mere look at scales 1 to 7 would show that the weightage of seniority was gradually reduced and finally came to nil. The present promotional policy agreement regards merit as the foundation. 71. Mr. Mukherjee referred to clause 9(2) of promotional policy agreement of 1981 and submitted that upto scale 1 to 5 seniority-cum-merit found predominant position varying from 85% to 25% and merit varying from 15% to 75%. As regards scale 5 to 7 total weightage is given to merit. The promotional policy agreement of 1987 reduced the weightage of appraisal. Mr. Mukherjee laid special emphasis on clause 4 of the promotional policy agreement of 1987 and argued seniority qualification performance interview are taken into account for allotment of maximum marks in different scales as indicated in clause 4. Seniority for service for Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II is accorded higher marks, imilarly Management Grade Scale II to Middle Management Grade Scale III higher marks are accorded for seniority. Seniority for service for Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II is accorded higher marks, imilarly Management Grade Scale II to Middle Management Grade Scale III higher marks are accorded for seniority. From Middle Management Grade Scale III to seniority Management Grade Scale IV the marks allotted for the seniority are 30 whereas performance appraisal and interview, are accorded 40 and 30 marks respectively, Qualification for Junior Management Grade Scale II to IV are given 10 marks. The evaluation of officers of seniority Management Grade Scale IV and onwards seniority is also accorded in respect of senior Management Grade Scale IV to Senior Management Grade Scale V. In the same category, performance of appraisal for 50 marks are earmarked 30 marks are allotted for interview. From Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI 60 marks are allotted for performance appraisal 40 marks are accorded for interview. Top Executive Grade Scale VI to Top Executive Grade Scale VII 50 marks are earmarked for performance of appraisal and 50 marks for interview. There is a rationale behind the allotment of marks in respect of different scales. 72. Mr. Mukherjee further in his answer to query as regards the meaning of the suitability placed reliance on State of Mysore v. Sayed Mohamood AIR 1968 SC 1113 and submitted suitability means if the person is suitable for the post he would get the said post. Seniority-cum-merit means the seniority will get weightage. In his endeavour to illustrate the point Mr. Mukherjee sought to analyse that in the event a person is not found to be very meritorious but he is senior to a person who is a real meritorious would get the promotion, This is the real test on merit-cum-seniority. Suitability is a different concept. The Bank authorities allotted higher percentage of marks seniority-cum-merit for the post as are indicated above, but in higher scales, the Bank Authorities considered merit as the foundation for promotion in respect of higher scales. The right of the officers remains unaffected by the promotional policy agreement of 1987 Promotional policy agreement of 1987 is prospective in nature, Mr. Mukherjee further joined the issue on the contention of Mr. The right of the officers remains unaffected by the promotional policy agreement of 1987 Promotional policy agreement of 1987 is prospective in nature, Mr. Mukherjee further joined the issue on the contention of Mr. Sen as regards the directives of the Bank Authorities to submit 1984 to 1986 appraisal forms within 3 days from the date of receipt of the Circular, and also the criticism of Mr. Sen that such direction is meant for those officers for the period between 1984 to 1986 appraisal form if not already submitted should be submitted within three days and there is no illegality crept in the said direction. In extension of submission as regards the direction of the concerned Bank Authorities to the concerned officer to submit 1984 to 1986 appraisal forms Mr. Mukherjee claimed the said appraisal form for the year from 1984 to 1986 would be the basis of marking allotment of marks after being processed in accordance with Rules. Marks should be allotted for each year. Average of three years should be taken into consideration. Mr. Mukherjee made a reference to the said Promotion Policy Agreement 1987, relevant portion of which is given below:- "We invite attention of all officers to certain important improvements in the promotion policy. In the new promotion policy, there is scope for achievements and potential. It is envisaged that selection must be through a proeess of interview of all eligible officers. To facilitate the interview panel, the eligible candidates are expected to bring along with then a performance appraisal regarding their achievements made during the year, 1987. We exhort all the officers to make the best use of this opportunity and exert fully in the remaining months of the year to take to Bank to greater heights". 74. The said invitation was meant for the purpose of obtaining the appraisal reports from the Reporting Officers and also the opinion of the Reporting Officers. The said three appraisal reports for the three years could be placed. Also Mr. Mukherjee urged the said appraisal report are not to be placed before the Interview Board. The Interview Board would be concerned only with the performance appraisal form as contained in Part-I, II and III as annexed to the said Circular. Mr. The said three appraisal reports for the three years could be placed. Also Mr. Mukherjee urged the said appraisal report are not to be placed before the Interview Board. The Interview Board would be concerned only with the performance appraisal form as contained in Part-I, II and III as annexed to the said Circular. Mr. Mukherjee in answer to query of the Court as to how the candidates should be required to bring nppraisal forms claimed that the said appraisal form which also contain comments of the Reporting Officer would be placed before the Interview Board. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that there are no guidelines laid down for the assessments of the candidates by the Interview Board. After referring to Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the promotional policy agreement, 1987 Mr. Mukherjee contended that the promotional policy agreement as also the performance appraisal forms do not suffer from any irrationality illegality and procedural impropriety and referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. Higher Education Services Commission. Allahabad & Ors, reported in AIR 1986 SC 597 (para 2); Union of India & Cynamide India Limited reported in AIR 1987 SC 1806 (para 7) Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India & Others (para 36) reported in AIR 1982 SC 1064 (para 36). 76. Mr. Mukherjee urged that there is a difference between Promotional Policy Agreement 1931 and the Promotional Policy Agreement, 1987 regarding the interview which does not suffer from vice on account of viva-voce examination and sought to explain distinction between three functions of an authority, administrative, quasi-judicial and legislative. The Bank Authorities in framing the policy did not exercise administrative power. The policy making power thus exercised in the facts of the case is either legislative or quasi-judicial. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee cited two decisions of the Supreme Court (I) Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and (2) Union of India v. Cynamide India Limited (supra). 77. In view of the said decisions of the Supreme Court, no question of affording an opportunity of hearing does arise. Promotional Policy Agreement, 1987 does not affect any individual. Reference to sub-section (1) of s. 19 of the said Act was made by Mr. Sen. Promotional Policy Agreement, according to Mr. 77. In view of the said decisions of the Supreme Court, no question of affording an opportunity of hearing does arise. Promotional Policy Agreement, 1987 does not affect any individual. Reference to sub-section (1) of s. 19 of the said Act was made by Mr. Sen. Promotional Policy Agreement, according to Mr. Sen, apart from being wholly de hors the provisions as contained in sub-section (2) and (3) of s. 19 of the said Act does not conform to the guidelines laid down by the Central Government Mr. Sen severely critized the procedure adopted by the Bank Authorities by directing the eligible candidates to bring along with them performance appraisal form before the Interview Board. The said direction is wholly unauthorised and defeats the basic requirements as are detailed in 1981 Promotional Policy Agreement. The Promotional Policy Agreement, 1987 seeking to confer in super-session of 1981 Promotional Policy Agreement arbitrary and unfettered power upon the Bank Authorities in the matter of selection of officers and the same otherwise depends upon the ipse dixit of the authority. 78. Before this argument, this Court put a query as to what is meant by merit of a candidate and whether suitability is implicit in merit, and also referred to the judgment in the case of N.P. Mathur v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1972 Patna 93 (Full Bench); Janaki Prasad Perimu v. State of Jammu rud Kashmir reported in AIR 1973 SC 930 . In answer to a query how the affected parties are to be taken into consultation; if so, whether the writ petitioner in the facts of the case should have been consulted. On this aspect, Mr. Mukherjee referred to the agreement concluded by and between the Bank Authorities and the two Unions having the majority of 89% of the officers the question of giving further opportunity of hearing or involving the writ petitioner in the process of consultation at the time of finalisation of the agreement cannot and does not arise at all. Mr. Sen's stand contrary to what have been explained by Mr. Mukherjee is a challenging advance in the domain of administrative law. I will deal with the respective contentions hereafter. The contention of Mr. Sen is that the Promotional Policy Agreement of 1987 is vitiated by illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety on such grounds as are referred to in the writ petition. 79. Mr. Mukherjee is a challenging advance in the domain of administrative law. I will deal with the respective contentions hereafter. The contention of Mr. Sen is that the Promotional Policy Agreement of 1987 is vitiated by illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety on such grounds as are referred to in the writ petition. 79. Mr. Mukherjee also claimed and contended that the Bank Authority is not concerned with the individual case; it is concerned with the whole mass. Regulation 17 of the Service Regulation empowers the Board to lay down policies from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Central Government. The power is not exhausted by framing rules. The guidelines also have not been violated by the Bank Authorities and the interview in the modern times have of late been accepted as their recognised mode of the test for selection. The Promotional Policy Agreement as straneously urged by Mr. Mukherjee does not travel beyond the Regulation of the Service Regulation. 80. The selection was held at Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. The highest authority makes a moderation of 8000 or 9000 employees and the Bank Authorities cannot satisfy all employees. 81. Mr. Molay Kumar Basu, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the added respondents initiated his submission by pointing out, inter alia, that Sri Arun Kumar Roy and some other members of the writ petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and participated in the interview and thereby they are now estopped from challenging the interview. The Promotional Policy Agreement of 1987 entitles an officer to appear for the interview even though he did not get a single mark and the case of the officer is open for review which was not otherwise available in the 1981 Promotional Policy Agreement, Mr. Molay Basu, the learned Senior Advocate, adopted the submissions of Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee. 82. Mr. Sen, in his reply submitted that the decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee have no manner of application. Mr. Sen further referred so the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Cynamide India Limited reported in (1987) 3 SCC 723 with special reference to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment. 83. Mr. Mr. Sen, in his reply submitted that the decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee have no manner of application. Mr. Sen further referred so the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Cynamide India Limited reported in (1987) 3 SCC 723 with special reference to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment. 83. Mr. Sen in his reply straneously urged that the Bank once having decided to intiate the consolation and negotiation with the officers' Association are estopped from excluding the petitioner from the zone of negatiation and consultation which the other two unions had with the Bank. Before formulating the Promotional Policy Agreement, the Bank Authorities should have held the consultation and negotiation with the writ petitioner which stands seriously affected. 84. Mr. Sen further claimed that the writ petitioner should have taken into consultation or an opportunity of being heard ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Mr. Sen seriously commented on the submission of Mr. Mukherjee by pointing out although it is the foundation of the legislature to legislate yet if it seeks to give power to the Executives, it is not only the right of the legislature but also is duty as principle to see how the agency has been entrusted with the task of carrying out it. Since the Board of Directors are given powers, it is primarily for it to supervise the control of the actual exercise of its power and ensure against the danger of unwarranted use of such power by the administration. The Board of Directors did not effectively exercise its power in the matter of formulation of the Promotional Policy Agreement by not laying the entire matter on the table by inviting the writ petitioner and other affected parties to have the same matter discussed or to secure consultation with them. The Promotional Policy Agreement before being implemented should have been circulated by the Draft Publication for the purpose of obtaining the views of the good number of officers represented by the petitioners and other Associations. 85. The Promotional Policy Agreement before being implemented should have been circulated by the Draft Publication for the purpose of obtaining the views of the good number of officers represented by the petitioners and other Associations. 85. When the provisions of the said Act and the Regulation 17 of the Service Regulation do not empower the Bank Authorities to formulate the Promotional Policy Agreement after holding discussions with the representatives of the unions, The actions taken in pursuance of the Promotional Policy Agreement cannot be sustained as the Bank Authorities did not act fairly and reasonably. The exclusion of the writ petitioner from the area of consultation and negotiation amounts to arbitrariness in the action of the Bank Authorities and the Promotional Policy Agreement is infected with grievious breach of Article 14 and 16. 86. Mr. Sen also urged the action of the respondent on the ground that the watch-dog of delegated legislation may be deplored, but for the compulsion and complexity of modern life, it cannot be helped. The agreement and subsequent Promotional Policy thus evolved by the Management after consultation and negotiation with two Unions and the formulation thereof without proper opportunity to the affected interests, according to Mr. Sen apart from being tainted with the procedural impropriety should not be allowed to travel beyond the Regulation making power conferred by the parent Act namely, the said Act. Mr. Sen in his reply pin-pointed the decision of the Bank Authorities that the performance appraisal form to be brought before the Interview Board as reference is somewhat ad hoc, arbitrary illegal and unwarranted. The Deposit Mobilization Advance System cannot be made the factors of merit test. The officers posted in rural and semi-urban areas cannot be expected to compete with the officers posted at Metropolis. The procedure for interview without proper guidelines as are indicated above is bound to suffer from arbitrariness and adhocism. The various factors forming the cut-off date as fixed on December 31, 1986, according to Mr. Sen have become illusory as the date of the performance appraisal stand extended till October 31, 1987. The extension of time as regards the performance appraisal is contrary to cut off date as fixed on December 31, 1986. Part III Performance Appraisal From refers to the net performance in the last report and current report (1987). 87. Sen have become illusory as the date of the performance appraisal stand extended till October 31, 1987. The extension of time as regards the performance appraisal is contrary to cut off date as fixed on December 31, 1986. Part III Performance Appraisal From refers to the net performance in the last report and current report (1987). 87. Now turning back to respective contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the panics it is appropriate for the Court to consider the following salient points;- (a) Whether Promotional Policy Agreement, 1987 includes elements of adhocism and arbitrariness? (b) Whether the writ petitioner should have been taken into consultation before the agreement was reached by and between the Bank Authorities and the Associations ? (c) Whether extension of time as regards the performances appraisal as would appear from Part-IV is contrary to cut off date as fixed on December 31, 1987? (d) Whether in absence of power of review in the Service Regulation framed in exercise of power conferred under s. 19 of the said Act, review could be held to be legal and valid? (e) Whether the Promotional Policy Agreement being purely stop-gap measure without proper checks and balance is valid or legal ? (f) Whether the introduction of the interview without any guidelines being attached to it would amount to conferring uncanalised power in the hands of the executive which in turn may give rise to arbitrariness nepotism and favouritism ? (g) Whether relaxation in regard to services in rural and semi-urban is rational, legal and procedurally proper ? 88. As regards the first point the Court already recorded respective submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Part-IV Performance Appraisal Form introduces elements of guesswork. Officers placed in rural and semi-urban areas are required to complete with the officers posted at Metropolis. Part VII cannot be complete with correct data. Correction of the factual aspect in the last report (1986) and current report (1987) till date is not open for scrutiny by the Interview Board. There is no indication in Part-III that the figures furnished have been duly checked and verified. 89. Part VII cannot be complete with correct data. Correction of the factual aspect in the last report (1986) and current report (1987) till date is not open for scrutiny by the Interview Board. There is no indication in Part-III that the figures furnished have been duly checked and verified. 89. Without there being a proper assessment of the merit by the Reporting Officer and/or Reviewing Officer the Interview Board is only acting on the basis of the Self Appraisal Form which remains incomplete and thereby real assessment of the candidate is allowed to be by-passed and that being so, the Promotional Policy Agreement' in my view, is arbitrary and adhoc in character. 90. I n this connection, the element of arbitrariness by reason of absence of guidelines cannot be excluded. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1979(1) SCC page 137 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 . The basis as accepted by presidential profusion of the Court leads this Court examine as to whether the Promotional Policy Agreement now being without proper approval and/or inconfirmity with s. 19 of the said Act has not been transplated in the hands of the Bank Authorities by the Regulation 17 which not only introduces the element of interview but also uncanalised power in such manner and no such basis as are seriously criticised by Mr. Sen. The conferment of power being unguided the delegate namely the Bank may at their sweet will do what is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Right to equality in respect of public employment stands imperilled by the Promotional Policy Agreement. Arbitrariness as repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 and Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1979(1) SCC 137 . The relevant portions of these judgments are set out hereunder:- 1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu : "Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. The relevant portions of these judgments are set out hereunder:- 1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu : "Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant prsnciples applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Arts. 14 and 16" 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India:- "Now, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14: What is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution.' It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must reiterate here what was pointed out by the majority in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348 ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ) namely, that from a positivistic point of review, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law anti is therefore violative of Article 14". Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law anti is therefore violative of Article 14". Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be, in conformity with "Article 14. It must be right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. How far natural justice is an essential element of procedure established by law" 3. Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) "Arbitrariness must be excluded in the law, for, if power is arbitrary it is potential inequality and Article 14 is totally allergic to inequality before the law". 91. Arbitrariness is percolated in the Promotional Policy Agreement which is impugned in the application and thereby it offended Article 14. Power conferred upon the Bank Authorities in my view is arbitrary and hence it potential inequality and Article 14 is fatally allergic to inequality before the law. 92. The next point requires further deeper probe when the Regulation 17 of the Service Regulation and also the guidelines do not provide for consultation, the steps taken by the concerned Bank Authorities to hold consultation and in-depth negotiation with the two other Unions to the exclusion of the writ petitioner who has some members are to be tested on the touchstone whether in a given situation consultation may take place on a mere formal non-statutory basis. In the instant case, the bank authorities held consultation with the two other unions. As such the absolute discretion ought not to have been left with the Banking authorities to exclude the petitioners from the zone of consideration, inasmuch as the petitioner also represented interest of some bank employees. The bank authorities before excluding the petitioner from the zone of consideration should have considered whether such interest represented by the petitioner should be ignored or not or such interest appeared to be appropriate for the purpose of consultation. The bank authorities before excluding the petitioner from the zone of consideration should have considered whether such interest represented by the petitioner should be ignored or not or such interest appeared to be appropriate for the purpose of consultation. There is no duty cast upon the Bank Authorities to consult the two other unions but once the consultation is allowed to be held, I am of the view, a duty is cast upon the Bank Authorities to consult the petitioner or in other words it requires the Bank Authorities to supply sufficient informations to the writ petitioner or those who are not being consulted for the purpose of enabling them to make their effective suggestions or comments or sufficient opportunity of having their say in the matter ought to have been accorded to the writ petitioner for offering their comments before the mind of the authority becomes unduly fixed. The argument of Mr. Mukherjee that no obligation is cast upon the Bank Authorities to consult the Unions nor the same is mandatory suffers from basic infirmity. The question which is required to be answered is that the Bank Authorities having gone in for consultation and negotiation if acted fairly, reasonably and properly in excluding the petitioner from the zone of consultation. The argument of Mr. Mukherjee cannot be accepted and I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submission of Mr. Mukherjee on the ground that the Bank Authorities on a pure hypothetical basis found out the strength of the membership of the respective unions and on that basis allowed the two unions to sit for consultation and negotiation to reach the agreement. When the consultation and/or negotiation took place on a mere formal and non-statutory basis the interest of the employees represented by the writ petitioner ought not to have been overlooked and ignored. The other Unions should have been allowed to sit across the table by applying the doctrine of non-discriminatory treatment and fundamentals of equality. 93. When the Bank Authorities held the consultation with the two Unions the writ petitioner ought to have been served with a notice so as to enable the employees represented by the writ petitioner to have their say in the matter and the writ petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of participation in respect of the promotional policy agreement through submission of written views and comments. For that purpose oral hearing may not be necessary, the whole consultation and negotiation process being quite informal, it should be borne in mind that the general concept of prior consultation possesses a number of advantages first to enable the views to be taken into account before the promotional policy is hardened into an agreement and the duty to consult has a wider significance. It allows the interest represented by the writ petitioner and other unions to play effective role in shaping of policy. In this sense, it enhances participation. No effective answer was furnished by the Bank Authorities as to why, how and under what circumstances the interest represented by the writ petitioner was over looked, in the matter of consultation or negotiation that were accorded to the two Unions. There could have been consultation with the writ petitioner in some form of collective adjudication which would have expanded the operation of views of the representatives. 94. Now the Court is required to examine whether degree of representation of interest outside the normal statutory channel is warranted; precisely the point in issue. The consultation could provide a welcome addition to the fundamentals of fair play or observance of the procedural fairness. The exclusion of the writ petitioner from the area of consultation without cogent grounds is irrational and procedurally improper. The chart showing the strength of membership of the Association placed by the Bank Authorities is founded upon incomplete and incorrect data. It is unfortunate on such incorrect and incomplete date as regards strength of the membership the Bank proceeded to consult and negotiate with the two Associations. When the Promotion Policy Agreement being highly complex and complicated the Bank Authorities arc expected to monitor the entire matter rationally and objectively While finally dealing with this point it is appropriate for the Court to consider once again whether there could be some obligation on the part of the Bank Authorities to consult the affected represented by the writ petitioner along with the other two Unions before implementing the promotion policy agreement. The option of control through consultation and negotiation in the facts of the case is more central here than it is in the context of delegated legislation. Consultation through representation of interested parties, in my view, can go greater way to achieve this. The option of control through consultation and negotiation in the facts of the case is more central here than it is in the context of delegated legislation. Consultation through representation of interested parties, in my view, can go greater way to achieve this. Achieving the objective scrutiny of the pros and cons of the provisions of the policy agreement the consultation, therefore, should not be underestimated. Consultation is of paramount importance where conflicting interests are operative precisely because an effective mechanism involving the process of consultation could have evolved ways and means for acceptance of the views and comments of the conflicting interest represented by the writ petitioners and the other Unions. 95. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties I hold even if it is decided not to develop any concept of consultation there is still a glaring note for publication so as to avoid the main objection of the administration quasi legislation presenting hapazard mode of promulgation that is that the Bank Authorities acted arbitrarily and without any sense of responsibility in excluding the petitioner from the zone of consultation and thereby displayed arbitrariness. 96. Both the Associations and the writ petitioner filed conflicting claims as regards membership supported by letters. Without going into the conflicting claims of the Unions which is required to be gone into by appropriate enquiry the Management is not the competent authority to assess the strength of the membership. An Affidavit filed by the respondent does not disclose as to how and in what manner they could secure the data as regards the membership of the Association. As regards the membership of the rival Unions, verification can only be made by the concerned Registrar of Trade Unions and not by the Bank Authorities. The entire approach of the Bank Authorities to come to adhoc determination as regards the strength of the Associations on a provisional basis is not only unauthorised but the same cannot be supported either factually or legally. 97. The Bank Authorities without laying down the guidelines and the norms as to how, in what manner and on what basis the eligibility of the Unions or the Associations are to be found for being taken into consultation adhoc not to have consulted and negotiated with the two Unions. No mode has been presented for the determination of the eligibility. The Bank Authorities without laying down the guidelines and the norms as to how, in what manner and on what basis the eligibility of the Unions or the Associations are to be found for being taken into consultation adhoc not to have consulted and negotiated with the two Unions. No mode has been presented for the determination of the eligibility. It is also pinpointed by Mr. Sen that in the absence of guidelines, the Bank Authorities could not act merely on the provisional data as are furnished to this Court by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee. The consultation and/or negotiation was allowed to be held only with two Unions having the alleged majority of 89 percent, There is no such guidelines that the Association or the Associations representing the alleged 89 percent or majority of the total employees should be taken into consultation and allowed to sit across the table for bipartite discussion. The fundamental contention of the writ petitioner raised a very serious question that in the absence of guidelines and the norms namely, (a) the Association enjoying the support of certain percentage to be fixed by the Bank is to be taken into consultation and the Association having the support of the certain percentage should not be taken into consultation. The Association enjoying the majority of the employees could be only, taken in the consultation to the exclusion of the Association not having support of the majority. No such guidelines were presented before this Court. That being the position, the contention of Mr. Sen assailing arbitrary and ad hoc manner in which 11 percent which according to writ petitioner is more than what was found by the Bank of the total employees excluded by the Bank Authorities merely on the ground that the Association enjoying the support or the officers upto certain percent should be overlooked. There is no obligation of the Bank Authorities to hold negotiation and consultation with any of the Unions. On the ipse dixit of the Bank Authorities the Associations or the Unions representing 11 percentage should not have been excluded. The Bank Authorities never asked the Unions to establish their strength. The device adopted by the Bank Authorities is founded upon adhocism and arbitrariness. On the ipse dixit of the Bank Authorities the Associations or the Unions representing 11 percentage should not have been excluded. The Bank Authorities never asked the Unions to establish their strength. The device adopted by the Bank Authorities is founded upon adhocism and arbitrariness. The purposes of consultation and negotiation is to give those affected by the proposed action an opportunity to put their case or where they have some special knowledge and expertise, to ensure that it is put at the disposal of the authority or both. The negotiation and consultation ensures that the Authority has regard to matters it ought to have regard to. 98. The resultant decision should be better than it would otherwise have been better in such senses as being more effective relevant, practical and acceptable to those affected. Did the Bank Authorities act properly, legally and rationally in holding negotiation and' consultation with the two Associations? The Bank Authorities failed to discharge duties in not holding consultation and negotiation with the writ petitioner and the others. Once the recourse to the negotiation and consultation is accepted and it is obligatory on the part of the Bank Authorities to hold negotiable discussions with the writ petitioner. Consultation and negotiation may sometime precede more specific decision as the appointment of persons to a public office or to a higher post. The Bank Authorities being statutory authorities cannot, without the guideline being laid down in such manner as indicated above exclude the writ petitioner from the zone of consultation, and negotiation. The writ petitioner being a registered trade union can claim the protection of the fundamental rights. No prejudice need be proved for enforcing the fundamental rights. The right of the writ petitioner to carryon the trade union activities includes the right of expressing its opinions and ventilating the grievances of it; members. The said right according to Mr. Sen is sought to be whittled down by the Bank Authorities, by reason of adverse steps taken by the Bank Authorities by excluding the writ petitioner from the zone of negotiation. The violation of fundamental rights itself renders the promotional agreement policy wholly without jurisdiction. 99. In my view, the Bank Authorities in the facts and circumstances ought to have consulted and/or negotiated with the employees represented by the writ petitioner and the affected interest. The violation of fundamental rights itself renders the promotional agreement policy wholly without jurisdiction. 99. In my view, the Bank Authorities in the facts and circumstances ought to have consulted and/or negotiated with the employees represented by the writ petitioner and the affected interest. Reference may be made to the case of Gillaghar v. Post Office reported in 1970(3) All. England Reporter 712 and Re. Post Office v. Exp. Association of Scientific Technical and Managerial Staffs (1981) 1 All. E.R. 139. The relcvant portion of the judgment in case of Re. Post Office v. Exp. Association of Scientific Technical and Managerial Staffs (supra) is quoted below;- "That seems to me an approach which cannot be faulted. The Post Officer is doing its duty. It has to seek consultation with organisations which appear to be appropriate with those objectives in view. It takes the view, honestly and in good faith and, it seems to me, on reasonable grounds, that this section of the ASTMS is not appropriate for the purpose. I cannot see any fault in its reasoning in coming to its decision, either by taking into account things it ought not to have taken into account or failing to take into account things that it should. There has only been one previous case on this section. It is Gillagher v. Post Office (1970) 3 All. ER 712. In a way that was a stronger case than this one, because the post Office did not consult with the men who were in its own guild. It only consulted with the Union of Post Office Workers. The decision was upheld by Brightman J. I need not go into the details of it, except to say that it is agreed on all hands that the Judge put it too high when he said the Post Office had an absolute discretion in there matters. He put it too high when he said that the duty was no more than a duty to seek consultation with such appropriate organisations, as it shall think fit to consult. This is not quite the right test. The requirement is that the Post Office must consider the appropriateness of the organisation. It did consider it fairly and reasonably and found it was not appropriate. No fault can be found with the decision of the Post Office in this matter. This is not quite the right test. The requirement is that the Post Office must consider the appropriateness of the organisation. It did consider it fairly and reasonably and found it was not appropriate. No fault can be found with the decision of the Post Office in this matter. I would agree with the view of the Divisional Court and dismiss the appeal." 100. The contention of Mr. Sen cannot but be accepted for the reasons as are indicated above. First-Consultation and negotiation involved communication with the person or persons consulted and negotiated. Second-A dispute may arise as to what matters are to be the subject of consultation and negotiation. The question was whether in view of the proposed alteration of the Promotional Policy consultation had to take place on the basis as is indicated above. Third-On matter, the subject of consultation and negotiation, there is a duty not merely to receive and consider the views expressed but to ensure that an opportunity is given for the views to be expressed. Fourthly-Consultation and negotiation may differ from case to case. Consultation in all cases clearly requires that the opinions and views expressed be considered with an open and receptive mind. 101. Here there is no openness impartiality and disclosure of mind. The Bank Authorities without laying down any guidelines excluded the writ petitioner and others. Mr. Mukherjee could not produce before this Court any such guidelines governing the held of consultation and negotiation in such manner and on such basis as is done in the facts and circumstances of the case. 102. Third point is required to be gone into whether the extension of time as regards the performance appraisal is contrary to cut off date as fixed on December 31, 1986. The ground for extension of time being contrary to the cut off date is also not effectively presented by the concerned parties although such Claims were made by the Bank Authorities in justification thereof. There should not be any departure from the Promotion Policy Agreement now under challenge by the writ petitioner. What was the basis and on what grounds such extension of time has been made. 103. The Bank Authorities did not answer to the query of Mr. Sen as regards the validity of the extension of time. There should not be any departure from the Promotion Policy Agreement now under challenge by the writ petitioner. What was the basis and on what grounds such extension of time has been made. 103. The Bank Authorities did not answer to the query of Mr. Sen as regards the validity of the extension of time. The extension of time being dehors cut off date otherwise cannot be sustained and the same is held to be illegal. (e) Whether in absence of power of review in the Service Regulation framed in exercise of power conferred under s. 19 of the said Act, review could be held to be legal and valid? 104. The power of review in the absence of any provision thereof in the Service Regulation as streneously challenged by Mr. Sen is now to be looked into. 105. The Service Regulations do not provide for the power of review. Such power of review in the absence of express provisions in the Service Regulation framed in terms of s. 19 of the said Act is required to be tested. The power of review not having been provided for in Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations and not being in conformity with the said Act the submission as advanced by Mr. Mukherjee requires further probe. Mr. Mukherjee claimed and contended that power of review as conferred by the Promotional Policy Agreement does not suffer from any infirmity. Now it is to be examined as to whether the Court can accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee as regards the power of review. It is well-settled that there is no inherent power of review with any authority and the said power can be exercised only if it is conferred by the statute. 106. Accordingly, I am of the view that there can not be any inherent power of review if it is not, otherwise provided. Therefore, the power of review cannot be accepted without conferment of such power by the statute. Reference may be made to the cases of Patel Norshee Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273 ; Meher Singh v. N.T. Das reported in AIR 1972 SC 2533 . 107. In the case of Palel Narshee Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, inter alia, that it is well-setted that the power of review is not an inherent power. 107. In the case of Palel Narshee Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, inter alia, that it is well-setted that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored. The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out that order. For this reason alone, the order of Mr. Mankodi was liable to be set aside. 108. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meher Singh v. N.T. Das (supra) held inter alia, that Competent Officer has no power to review his earlier order as the power is not conferred on him by the Statute. Relevant portions of the above judgment are given below :- "Firstly, it is contended that the order made by the Competent Officer dated July 8, 1960 was not by way of review. Secondly, the order of the Appellate Officer should be construed as one of remand to the Competent Officer. Thirdly, the respondent had no right whatsoever to take the property in dispute because of the various reasons which need not be mentioned. It is not possible for us to allow Mr. Vohra to agitate all those contentions. These points were never raised either before the Division Bench of the High Court, nor have they been taken in the petition for Special Leave to this Court, and are to be found even in the petition under Article 133 of the Constitution for obtaining leave of the High Court to appeal to this Court. They are altogether new points. The only point on which the controversy centered before the Division Bench related to the powers of the Competent Officer to review the order of his predecessor. On that point, Mr. Vohra has not been able to show us anything from the provisions of the Act which empowers the Competent Officer to review his Orders" 109. The only point on which the controversy centered before the Division Bench related to the powers of the Competent Officer to review the order of his predecessor. On that point, Mr. Vohra has not been able to show us anything from the provisions of the Act which empowers the Competent Officer to review his Orders" 109. Is the Promotional Policy Agreement being purely stop-gap measure without proper checks and balance is valid and legal ? and Is the relaxation in regard to service in rural and semi-urban is rational, legal and proceedingly proper? 110. The Bank Authorities sought to introduce the said Promotion Policy purely as an adhoc measure but no checks and balance were provided for proper implementation of Promotion Policy Agreement. 111. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank Authorities despite the repeated query put to him could not effectively explain as to why the Officers who are allowed to sit for the interview should not put in a minimum years of service in a rural branch and why the said officers without fulfilling the proviso which would become operative in respect of the promotion to be made within 1st June, 1988 should be given undue advantage of not serving in a rural branch. 112. Similarly, the officers from Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale-II should put seven years of satisfactory service in Junior Management Grade Scale-I, From Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale-II-7 years of satisfactory service in Junior. Management Grade Scale- I. Provided that the officer has put in a minimum of two years service in a rural branch. From Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Middle Management Grade Scale-III-5 years of satisfactory service in Middle Management Grade Scale-II. Provided that the officer concerned has put in a minimum period of service of three years as an officer in a rural and/or semi-urban branch. 113. Similar irrational departure is made from Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Middle Management Grade Scale-III which requires officers to put in a minimum period of service of five years as an officer. Why did the Bank Authorities become overzealous in giving a complete go-bye to the said service to save minimum period of two years and three years in rural and semi-urban branch? Mr. Mukherjee did not deal with the said contentions of Mr. Why did the Bank Authorities become overzealous in giving a complete go-bye to the said service to save minimum period of two years and three years in rural and semi-urban branch? Mr. Mukherjee did not deal with the said contentions of Mr. Sen as regards the unusual departure sought to be made in favour of the officers who, if promoted, would not be required to go in for service in the rural branch or semi-rural branch. The Ministry of Finance did not confer power upon the Bank as regards the relaxation limit which had been restricted to six months. Ministry of Finance was not told as to how, why and in what circumstances the officers should not be required to put in a minimum period of two years service of rural branch in respect of the Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale-II and the three 'years in respect of the' officers belonging to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Middle Management Grade Scale-III. This departure which was streneously pointed out by Mr. Sen remains un-effectively answered by Mr. Mukherjee. The relaxation without rational justification cannot be said to be legal and procedurally valid. 114. Apart from above, relaxation period having been over, the officer concerned as regards Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale-III are to put in two years of service in a rural branch and the period of three years service as an officer in rural and semi-urban branch. Without adhering to the provision as regards the service in rural area and semi-rural areas the officer cannot be permitted to be selected. The officers in terms of the Regulations are required to go to the rural areas with effect from 1st June, 1988. The unexplained eagerness and unwarranted overzealousness of the Bank Authority to avoid, the posting of the Bank Officers in the rural areas on 1st June, 1988 clearly demonstrates that the said provision is conciously sought to be bye-passed, thereby adhocism is allowed to be encouraged. Any element of adhoctsm which is a posibility of being percolated in the exercise of power by the Bank Authorities is to be depricated. The exercise of power for an improper purpose is unlawful. When a power is expressly given for one purpose an exercise of that power solely for another purpose is invalid. 115. Any element of adhoctsm which is a posibility of being percolated in the exercise of power by the Bank Authorities is to be depricated. The exercise of power for an improper purpose is unlawful. When a power is expressly given for one purpose an exercise of that power solely for another purpose is invalid. 115. The checks and balances are not effectively provided out for the following reasons:- "No explanation has been effectively offered by the Bank Authorities when the extension of time as regards the performance appraisal beyond the cut off date is effected. No explanation has been offered as to how the officers who were required to go to rural areas on 1st June, 1988 are allowed. 116. The contention of Mr. Sen as regards the introduction of interview without any guideline being attached to it would amount to conferring uncanalised power in the hands of the executive merits serious consideration of this Court. The basic question is that the self appraisal form without having cat-scan on such tests as are applicable prior to the introduction of the novel, device is allowed to be taken by the concerned officer beyond 31st December, 1986 before the interview Board remains unanswered. Self-Appraisal Form requires thorough objective scrutiny of the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer. Without the said scrutiny the concerned officer was allowed to take the self-appraisal form beyond the period of 31st December, 1986 before the Interview Board without proper checks and assessment. The procedure is vitiated by irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety. The Promotion Policy Agreement may suffer criticism as there is no watchdog of delegated legislation and in the background of the compulsion and complexity of the modern life formulation giving rise to the Promotion policy does not have such watch-dog for proper scrutiny and assessment. 117. The legislature cannot self-efface its personality and make over in terms plenary, the essential legislative functions. So also the excessive delegation has been frowned upon by the Constitutional Law. The legislature is responsible and responsive to the people and the representative, the delegate may not be and that is why excessive delegation and legislative suicide have been seriously commenced upon by the Courts. 118. The Bank Authorities is subject to the authority and control of the principal and exercise of delegated power can always be directed, corrected or cancelled by the principal. 119. 118. The Bank Authorities is subject to the authority and control of the principal and exercise of delegated power can always be directed, corrected or cancelled by the principal. 119. The inescapable conclusion emerges that even if there be delegation, parlimentary control over delegated legislation should be a living continuity as a constitutional necessity. 120. In the instant case, Operation of Delegation is not at once expedient, exigent and even essential. The Bank Authorities are not given with unfettered power. The said Act and Service Regulation framed thereunder did no afford the carte blanche in the hands of the Bank Authorities. 121. Performance Appraisal Form which is allowed to be brought in the Interview Board being infected with adhoc system introducing extraneous matters. Deposit mobilisation and advance system cannot be the basis of merit test. 122. The point which is paramount in character is whether suitability is implicit in merit. Reference may be made .in the case of M.P. Mathur v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1972 Patna 93 (Full Bench) and Janaki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in AIR 1973 SC 930 at 935. "The petitioner in the said case seriously criticised and the system of interview in these words:- Personality connotes traits in one's character and not merely physical appearance or muscular strength. The inability to control the students and administer the work of a school could not possibly be tested by a viva voce test. For this purpose, the service record and personal flies of the candidates were the best criteria for assessing the suitability and merit. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them the authorities never placed the service record and personal files before the Departmental Promotion Committee members. The rich experience gained through his career in the service, teaching and administrative quality, discipline, punctuality, regularity, popularity, ability to carryon with staff, qualities to tone up the schools to create healthy tradition and create interest amongst the students in extra curricular activities which were the most relevant aspects and would have been known to the members of the Interviewing Committee from the service and personal record of the candidates". 123. Reference made by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee to the decision in case of J. Kumar v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 2009 . 123. Reference made by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee to the decision in case of J. Kumar v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 2009 . In this case, Supreme Court, inter alia, held as would appear from the paragraphs 36 as quoted below:- The next point urged by the appellant is that since the impugned rules disturb the previously fixed seniority. It is quasi-judicial in nature and they ought to have been issued only after giving notice to all the affected persons. We have already found that no alteration in the pre-existing policy relating to determination of seniority in the R & D has been brought about the impugned rules. Quite apart from that, the promulgation of a statutory rule governing seniority is not a quasi-judicial function. It is the exercise of a legislative power and in respect thereof, the principles of natural justice have no application at all. 124. The paragraph 2 or the judgment cited by Mr. Mukherjee in the case or Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Service Commission (1986 I SCC 671) refers to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. The judgment in Ajay Hasia's case has been explained in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777 and what has been said in Lila Dhar's case (supra) has been approved by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 . 125. Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy while speaking for the Court in case of Keshav Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Secondary Service Commission (supra) also referred to Pariakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1971 SC 2303 . Relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:- "It is true that in Pariakuruppan case ( AIR 1971 SC 2303 ) the Court held that the non-allocation of marks under various heads in the interview test was illegal but that was because the instructions to the Selection Committee provided that marks were to be awarded at the interview on the basis of five distinct tests. it was thought that the failure to allocate marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality. it was thought that the failure to allocate marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality. But in the case before us, the Rule merely and generally indicates the criteria to be considered in the interview test without dividing the interview-test into distinct if we may so call them, sub-tests." 126. Mr. Mukherjee referred to paragraph 7 of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1802 . 127. In my view, the facts and circumstances of the present case do involve substantially different questions which are to be answered by this Court. In all the cases, the Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with such adhoc procedure namely the candidate concerned should be asked to bring self nppraisal form nor the Supreme Court had any occasion to deal with the mode and manner in which the interview is to be held and the extension of time beyond the cut-off period. The Court while dealing with the decision in case of Dr. Keshablal Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Secondary Service Commission (supra) cannot overlook the judgment in the case of Pariakaruppan v. Tamil Nadu (supra) nor the observation of Bhagwati J. in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 . The relevant portion of the said judgment of Ajay Hasia case as quoted below, should not be completely excluded from the zone of consideration of this Court:- "The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and cvaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to, only as an additional or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and qualification." 128. In all cases, the Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with such adhoc procedures namely, (i) Performance Appraisal Form without proper check and balance; (ii) The candidate would be personally directed to bring the performance Appraisal Form without the objective assessment of the Reviewing Officer before the Interview Board; (iii) The mode and manner in which the interview is to be performed; (iv) The relaxation in the matter of service in rural and semi-rural areas without rational justification, consultation and negotiation with two Unions to the exclusion of the writ petitioner and other interested persons adversely affected; (v) Methodology as regards the interview, Performance Appraisal Form, exercise of power of Review, unauthorised exclusion of the Officers for the purpose of service in rural and semi-ruban areas is per-se illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; 129. None of the decisions of the Supreme Court as discussed above deal with the question of negotiation or consultation with the two Unions to the exclusion of the other Unions. In a modern Society which is rapidly changing the consultative mechanism has now been by degrees given some importance. While discussing with this consultative mechanism the Court is not oblivious of the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that it is not possible to give hearing to each individual but the facts of the case are altogether different. The Bank Authorities commenced, continued and concluded consultation and negotiation with the other two Unions and also without obtaining verification of membership of the registered Trade Unions by the Registrar of Trade Unions acted on incorrect data. The writ petitioner was not considered eligible for being taken into consultation without any rational basis and legal justification. 130. On this aspect, the argument of Mr. Sen has much force. The writ petitioner was not considered eligible for being taken into consultation without any rational basis and legal justification. 130. On this aspect, the argument of Mr. Sen has much force. Though in the Act and the Service Regulations, prior consultation with the Unions is not required, failure to hold consultation with the Unions in a given situation may not render the Promotional Policy Agreement illegal, but once recourse to the consultation or negotiation by the Bank Authorities is effected, it would have been proper and rational for the Bank Authorities to consult and negotiate with the writ petitioner and other Unions in respect of Promotional Policy Agreement. Why the writ petitioner was not taken into consultation and was excluded therefrom, remains unexplained. The grounds as furnished by the Bank Authorities as regards the percentage of the membership of the Unions do not find any support from a statutory authorities having justification or competence to verify the membership of the Trade Unions. Mere check off system cannot do away with proper verification of membership of the respective Unions. No reason was assigned why even the Unions having representative interest, should be excluded from the zone of consultation and/or negotiation. 131. None of the judgments cited by Mr. Mukherjee could be of any assistance in the matter of excluding the writ petitioner from the zone of consultation and/or negotiation. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case (supra), Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) and in the case of Janaki Prosad Perumi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) have been highlighted, by Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioner. The said decisions are applicable in the facts of this case. 132. In my view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the promotion policy for the Officers dated August 18, 1987 as approved by the Board on September 16, 1987 are declared illegal and according]y, set aside. The Officers without serving the rural and semi-urban areas are declared ineligible for being selected. All the acts and actions taken pursuant to the said Agreement 1987 are also declared illegal. The Officers without serving the rural and semi-urban areas are declared ineligible for being selected. All the acts and actions taken pursuant to the said Agreement 1987 are also declared illegal. There will be stay to the effect that the results of the interview shall not be published for a period of six weeks, After the expiry of the said period of six weeks, the results of the interview held pursuant to the said Policy are to be treated as also quashed and all the subsequent steps taken by the respondents pursuant to the said interview be treated as illegal unauthorised and unwarranted. 133. Accordingly, the writ application is, therefore, allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay made by Mr. Subrata Ray, the Learned Advocate for the Bank is refused. Promotion policy declared illegal and set aside.