BALAKRISHNA J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner entered into the service of state Bank of India as Clerk cum Typist in the month of February, 1956 at Madras. He was promoted to the Grade of Officers Gradc-II in april 1967 and further promoted to Gradc-I on 1-4-1973. He was confirmed on 1-1-1974. it is slated that the petitioner has a consistently good record of service in all the assignments and posts which were given to him from 1967 as on the date of the writ petition. The petitioner has worked in various grades such as Accountant, Gadag Branch; Agent, gokak Branch; Accountant, Bijapur Branch; Accountant, madikcri Branch; Accountant, Karwar branch; Branch Manager, Chitguppa Branch; manager, Agricultural Banking Division, Gulbarga branch; Manager, Personal Banking division, Doorvaninagar Branch. ( 2 ) HE satisfied the criteria for promotion to the Scale-II in the Middle Management and was eligible. for consideration for promotion as on 1st august, 1980. The petitioner has furnished a resume of the performance as Branch Manager, chitaguppa Branch from November 1976 to august 1979. The petitioner has placed material before the Court to substantiate his meritorious performance throughout his career. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has also furnished material to show his out standing performance in developmental activities, recovery measures and in the efficient discharge of his duties. ( 4 ) A list of promotees to the Middle Management Grade Scalc-II with effect from 1-8-1980 came to be prepared vide Anncxurc-E and the petitioner's name was not found at all in the said list. The petitioner, therefore, became aggrieved by the order of promotion which defeated his legitimate right; An appeal was preferred before the second respondent by the petitioner in Staff Circular No. 35 of 19th April, 1976 and No. 8 of 26th March, 1979: After the appeal was filed, the appellate aulhority did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is stated that the appellate authority without taking into consideration the facts and grounds urged in the appeal took a view that there is no justification to revise the decision already taken as per Annexure-J. Since his appeal was also rejected, the petitioner is further aggrieved. ( 5 ) WHEN the petitioner was in Grade II the list that was in existence consisting of the relative positions of all the officials in Gradc-II, shows on page 19 of the writ petition that the petitioner was in SI. No. 1. His date of appointment to grade II as Officer on Probation is 1-4-1967 and the date of confirmation is 1-10-1967 whereas all others arc placed below the petitioner. ( 6 ) AS against this, when the list relating to Grade I was prepared, the name of the petitioner is not included at all. ( 7 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is staled that until 1982 only one channel of promotion viz. . , seniority channel was in existence and according to the promotion policy existing at the relevant point of time the crilcria laid down for promotion was a minimum of 7 years confirmed service as erstwhile Officer, Gradc-I (O. G. I.) as on 1-1-1981 and that the officers who satisfied the above criteria were called for interview and that in addition to seniority, number of other aspects were also taken into consideration like merit and such other considerations meant for selection. It is further stated that promotion to Middle Management grade-II was dependent on many factors apart from seniority such as: (a) whether the official has passed CAIIB examination; (b) the official's performance including confidential reports and (c) his performance in the interview. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to. be promoted and placed over and above respondents 3 to 59 in gradc-I? ( 9 ) THE plca taken by respondents 1 and 2,in my opinion are rather vague and general in nature. It is not disputed that the petitioner occupied si. No. 1 in the list in respect of Grade-I I. But it is only after the interview took place for promotion to Grade-I, his name is not to be found in the list at all of the promotees. Unless there are compelling reasons which are legally sustainable and disclosed, it appears to me that denial of promotion to the petitioner by excluding him totally from the list of promotccs tantamounts to punishment without any rational basis and without going through the procedure for meeting out such a treatment to the petitioner. Unless there are compelling reasons which are legally sustainable and disclosed, it appears to me that denial of promotion to the petitioner by excluding him totally from the list of promotccs tantamounts to punishment without any rational basis and without going through the procedure for meeting out such a treatment to the petitioner. The impugned promotion look place prior to 1982 and all that was prescribed was a minimum period of 7 years of confirmed service which the petitioner fully satisfied. It is not clear from the statement of objections as' to what criteria the petitioner did not satisfy in specific terms and the modus of promotion as well as the specific criteria and norms adopted for the purpose of consideration of the petitioner and others for promotion specific reasons are not forthcoming. Even after the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority in order to vindicate his rights, no reasons arc assigned as to why the petitioner was not given the promotion that was due to him. In these circumstances, the promotion granted to respondents 3 to 59 appears to be dubious and the denial of promotion to the petitioner who was on the top of the list in Grade II docs not commend acceptance. In the circumstances of the case, I am led to the inference that the petitioner has been subjected to invidious discrimination. ( 10 ) THE track record of the petitioner is beyond reproach. The ample material that is placed before the Court justifies the inference that the petitioner has not only given a good account of himself but also has rendered outstanding service in various capacities throughout his career. There is no material for me to come to the conclusion that the performance of the petitioner cither at the interview or according to the confidential report has not been satisfactory. The prescription of CAIIB as a qualification for consideration for promotion is without foundation. As a matter of fact, there is no material on record to show that respondents 3 to 59 had such a qualification and that they were more merited than the petitioner. Such a comparative assessment is possible only when the basis is officially disclosed. It is not known whether any guideline was fixed and applied for the purpose of promotion and such a guideline is not before the Court either. Such a comparative assessment is possible only when the basis is officially disclosed. It is not known whether any guideline was fixed and applied for the purpose of promotion and such a guideline is not before the Court either. Unless tangible material is placed before the Court in support of the contentions of the respondents, I am unable to accept the objections preferred in the statement of the respondents. The record of service of the petitioner in developmental activities, recovery performance and in the official discharge of his duties have been quite impressive. Annexurcs-A, B, C, F, G, h, K, L, M, N, P, Q and R are letters of appreciation issued at various points of time commending the outstanding service of the petitioner in various capacities during his career. It is difficult to ignore these letters of appreciation and also in particular an award vide anncxure-K given to the petitioner for excellence in performance of his official duties. There is no contrary material placed before me against the evidence placed by the petitioner substantiating his preferential excellence. In the circumstances, i am of the opinion that denial of seniority to the petitioner and giving preference to respondents 3 to 59 is an action which is most unjustified and unreasonable. Hence the following order: ( 11 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the seniority list vide Anncxure-E over and above respondents 3 to 59 with effect from 1-8-1980 on which date respondents 3 to 59 were promoted to Middle Management Grade, Scale II together with all consequential benefits including promotional benefit to the petitioner based on the promotion. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent, who is junior to the petitioner is holding M. M. G. , scale IV as on today. It is made clear that the petitioner as a consequence of this order is entitled to be placed above in M. M. G. , Scale IV when promoted. The respondents 1 and 2 arc directed to give effect to the order of this Court within a period of three months from the dale of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .