P. N. Nag ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the promotion of respondents 3 to 34 to the post of Deputy Chief Manager/ Assistant Regional Manager and has further sought directions of this Court that he should be considered and appointed to the aforementioned post with effect from 11. 6. 1982 when respondents 3 to 34 were promoted. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts set out in the petition are that the petitioner has excellent academic and banking credentials. He holds the Master of Arts in Industrial Economics from the University of Allahabad where the petitioner secured 7th position In the merit list of the entire university. He has also been conferred a Diploma in Marketing and Diploma in Personnel Management. He has also referred to his certain other qualifications. ( 3 ) THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank vide appointment letter dated 14/18th February, 1975 as Manager in the then prevailing scale II. The petitioner s work and conduct has always been outstanding and exemplary. Because of his exceptional qualifications and experience, the petitioner was appointed as Faculty Member in Staff Training College twice but he was not. permitted to continue for long with a view to neutralize his achievements. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, wherever he has worked, he has done not only great service to the bank but brought credit to the bank. Unfortunately he has not been given due promotions to the post of Deputy Chief Manager/assistant Regional Manager on account of malafldes of respondent No. 2 on account of union rivalry which had occasioned a bitter and acrimonious disposition towards the petitioner and an attitude of favouritism towards respondents 3 to 34 who are active members/office bearers of the union master-minded by respondent No. 2 as ideologue and mentor. The petitioner had incurred his wrath by being instrumental in the creation of the only rival union to the existing monopoly of the union of which respondent No. 2 was the ideological father-figure. Respondent No. 2 joined the respondent bank as a Special Assistant and has risen to the present position of General Manager only by virtue of advantages systematically reaped by him initially as. a card-holding member of the Communist Part. Respondent No. 2 joined the respondent bank as a Special Assistant and has risen to the present position of General Manager only by virtue of advantages systematically reaped by him initially as. a card-holding member of the Communist Part. of India (for Short CPI) and subsequently as the General Secretary of the union of Award staff of the bank affiliated to the All India Bank Employees Association (for short AIBEA) till recently he held the post of General Secretary of the said Union. Even after relinquishing the formal office of General Secretaryship, respondent No. 2 retains the total control over the union as its ideological head and mentor and acts through various nominees, including one Shri S. K. Lamba, presently Deputy General Manager of the respondent bank. Respondent No. 2 has never faced proper selection in his life and has obtained each and every promotion illegally by-passing the better entitlements of others. Respondent No. 2 has always ensured that the senior most and key-posts are filled by ineligible persons who are activists of the CPI or its affiliated unions, or who, for the sake of their careers have embraced the ideology of the CPI and the AIBEA affiliated unions. All the top officers of the bank have, at one time or another, held positions in the AIBEA affiliated unions and have received unwarranted advantages out of their said affiliations/associations, S/shri S. K. Soni - General Manager, S. P. Talwar - Executive Director, S. K. Lamba - Deputy General Manager, Surinder Mohan - Deputy General Manager, and V. S. Thakur - Deputy General Manager, have all held the positions of General Secretary/president, Executive Member, General Secretary, Central Committee Member and Vice President respectively of AIBEA affiliated union of CPI. No selection process for promotion or appointment to any post is free from affiliation bias and no objective consideration of the merits is either done or even possible in view of the aforementioned considerations. The petitioner was first person of the respondent bank who openly denounced the Communist dominated Union in the bank and declared his allegiance to the Indian National Trade Union Congress. The petitioner was first person of the respondent bank who openly denounced the Communist dominated Union in the bank and declared his allegiance to the Indian National Trade Union Congress. According to the petitioner, it is common knowledge that respondent No. 2 thereupon used to call the petitioner In his chamber and in the presence of other comrade officers threatened him that if he indulged in trade union activities and opposed their union affiliated to CPI, he would never get any promotion. The petitioner, on one pretext or another, has been getting mal-treatment from the respondents 1 and 2 with a view to ruin his career. The petitioner has referred to policy and rules for the officers of the respondent No. 1 bank existing on the date of the transfer and acquisition of the Undertaking of the bank in paragraph 13 of the petition. However, Government of India by a resolution dated 19. 7. 1973 appointed a Committee, popularly known as pilial Committee consisting of five members to standardize the pay scales, allowances and perquisites of the officers of the nationalised banks. This Committee gave its report in May, 1974. Since the respondent No. 1 bank was nationalised in - 1980, the recommendations of the Filial Committee, technically speaking, were not applicable to the respondent No. 1 bank in regard to seniority promotions. However, the same, later on, have been acted upon by the respondent No. 1 bank and according to which only accelerated promotions were intended to reward the meritorious and exceptionally good officers to reach top positions and in normal course the promotion has to be made on the basis of seniority subject to crossing efficiency bars, if any, and absence of adverse reports on conduct or performance of the officials/officers. In other words, it is on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. ( 5 ) SOMEWHERE In May, 1982, the respondent bank announced vacancies of Deputy Chief Officers and Area Managers, which were subsequently re-designated as Deputy Chief Managers and Assistant Regional Managers, and announced interviews for candidates fulfilling qualifications as per letter dated 2. 6. 1982 which reads as under: "managers in GDB with six years continuous service as Manager or five years continuous service as Manager with two years as Officer. as on 21. 5. 1982. "according to the petitioner, the qualifications enumerated in the letter dated 2. 6. 6. 1982 which reads as under: "managers in GDB with six years continuous service as Manager or five years continuous service as Manager with two years as Officer. as on 21. 5. 1982. "according to the petitioner, the qualifications enumerated in the letter dated 2. 6. 1982 quotedabove should be considered in conjunction with the note put up to the Board of Directors on 20. 5. 1982 and approved by them on 21. 5. 1982. The said note put up on 20. 5. 1992 and approved by the Board of Directors on 21. 5. 1982 has been annexed as Annexure P-9 to the petition. According to him, these two documents clearly show that the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Manager/assistant Regional Manager is seniority subject to fitness. In other words, all eligible candidates were to be promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Manager/assistant Regional Manager on the basis of relative seniority but of course subject to their fitness. Stipulation for holding interview was incorporated only with a view to assess the candidates in the light of the aforesaid criteria. According to him, the respondents 1 and 2, have Illegally and arbitrarily and improperly constituted a Board consisting of S/shri R. C. Suneja - the then General Manager, S. P. Talwar - Joint General Manager, R. C. Kapoor - the Deputy General Manager, S. K. Soni - the then Deputy General Manager (Personnel ). Respondent No. 2, Shri S. K. Soni, deliberately got himself included in the Selection Committee with the sole Idea of thereby ensuring the selection of respondents 11 and 13. who were closely related to respondent No. 2 as brother and first cousin respectively of respondent No. 2. Accordingly to him, the respondent No. 2 although was closely related to respondents 11 and 13, but participated in the proceedings, joint deliberations and the drawing up of the final result in a manner so as to prejudice the interests of the petitioner and to further the promotional prospects of respondents 11 and 13. particularly. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the promotion process from the very Inception was vitiated by Illegalities. The respondent bank had to make 54 promotions and in terms of the approval of the Board of Directors dated 21. 5. 1982, was to consider only two persons for each post. particularly. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the promotion process from the very Inception was vitiated by Illegalities. The respondent bank had to make 54 promotions and in terms of the approval of the Board of Directors dated 21. 5. 1982, was to consider only two persons for each post. The respondent, however, with the Illegal designs to include in the zone of consideration, certain favoured persons, considered candidature of 120 persons, i. e. , far in excess of the permissible number of persons. Furthermore, the respondent bank did not work out the zone of consideration on the basis of the then prevailing seniority list of managers in Grade B as on 31. 12. 1981, which was the only seniority list in existance at that time. A copy of the seniority list as on 31. 12. 1981 has been annexed as Annexure P-10 to this petition. The respondent bank by-passed the aforesaid seniority list irrespective of the eligible persons to be considered. Invited many more persons far junior to the petitioner for interview with a view to promote their favourites, some of them do not have minimum qualifications. In the said seniority list the petitioner stands at Sr. No. 53 while respondents 3 to 33 occupy the position at Sr. Nos. 58, 67, 68, 69, 71, 77, 74, 79, 80,82, 83, 97, 100,102,104,105,106,107,108,130,135,138,163, 164, 174, 061 213, 232, 247, 284 and 56 respectively. Further respondents 23, 27, 29, 30 and 32 do not, even fulfil the criterion announced for promotion vide circular letter dated 2. 6. 1982. Furthermore, there were serious charges against respondent No. 11, Shri A. K. Puri, and respondent No. 13, Shri A. K. Soni and, therefore, they were not eligible to be considered. Again, respondent No. 11 is not even a graduate. Respondent No. 13 is the real brother of respondent No. 2 whereas respondent No. 11, Shri A. K. Puri, is the real cousin brother of respondent No. 2. Respondents 22,27 and 30 were reverted and for the years 1977 to 1980 they were working as officers only. Again, respondent No. 11 is not even a graduate. Respondent No. 13 is the real brother of respondent No. 2 whereas respondent No. 11, Shri A. K. Puri, is the real cousin brother of respondent No. 2. Respondents 22,27 and 30 were reverted and for the years 1977 to 1980 they were working as officers only. However, they have been given the benefit of counting the number of years worked in the lower rank with the number of years worked in the senior rank, irregularly and in violation of the basic rule that an officer who has been reverted to a lower rank is not entitled to add the number of years worked in the said lower rank to his seniority in the senior rank even after he is rehabilitated in the senior rank. However, on the basis of interview, results were declared vide Annexure P-14 collectively and on that basis respondents 3 to 34 were promoted superseding the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the promotions of respondents 3 to 34, and his supersession, to the post of Deputy Chief Manager/ Assistant Regional Manager, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and challenged such promotions. The grounds of challenge in the petition, inter alia, are, that the promotions of respondents 3 to 34 are illegal and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; the bank did not follow the criteria of promotion which was substituted by the bank as seniority subject to fitness; prescribing of 100 % marks for interview is also arbitrary and capricious; selection has been made out of ineligible candidates and beyond the field of choice permissible under the rules. Further the promotions of respondents 3 to 34 are bad and void ab initio as respondent No. 2, who was the brother and first cousin of respondents 13 and 11, as a member of the Selection Committee, participated in the proceedings and deliberations of selection and drawing up of a final list. There was a constant conflict between his interests and his duty and at least reasonable likelihood of bias, which is sufficient to invalidate the promotions. ( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1-bank, the allegations of the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that on the basis of resolution of Board of Directors dated 20. 5. ( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1-bank, the allegations of the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that on the basis of resolution of Board of Directors dated 20. 5. 1982 certain criteria was laid down for promotion to the post of Area Manager/deputy Chief Manager and all the persons who were eligible as per the criteria laid down were Included in the zone of consideration as there did not exist any seniority list at the relevant time. Not a single person who was not eligible was considered for promotion as alleged by the petitioner. The method of interview was adopted as this was a case of promotion and as the confidential reports of the candidates were made available to the Interview Committee. It has further been denied that there was any Government guidelines that the criteria should be seniority subject to fitness. The criteria was laid down by the Board vide its resolution dated 20. 5. 1982 and respondents 11 and 13 were considered as they were found eligible in accordance with the criteria laid down for promotion and they were promoted after Interview. The petitioner was also considered for promotion but he having not qualified for promotion has rightly been rejected. Therefore, there has been no arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the promotions of respondents 3 to 34. ( 8 ) IT has further been stated that the promotion process and promotion of respondents 3 to 34 are not vitiated because of inclusion of respondent No. 2 as a member of the Selection Committee as at that time there were three Deputy General Managers and one of them was under suspension. Moreover, respondent No. 2 was then the Deputy General Manager (Per.) and it was necessary to include him in the committee for the selection of personnel to the higher posts. Respondent No. 2 did not participate in the selection proceedings/deliberations when respondents 11 and 13 were being Interviewed. There was no bias of the selection committee or even a reasonable likelihood of bias as alleged by the petitioner. This is more so because the selection committee also consisted of members senior to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 did not participate in the selection proceedings/deliberations when respondents 11 and 13 were being Interviewed. There was no bias of the selection committee or even a reasonable likelihood of bias as alleged by the petitioner. This is more so because the selection committee also consisted of members senior to respondent No. 2. The manner in which the interviews wereconducted and marks awarded was decided by the Selection Committee Itself and the said method is a correct method of assessment of candidates for promotion. The allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 2 have been denied. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to Grade III and IV simultaneously with respondents 3 to 34 is not maintainable as he was not entitled to Grade III, IV and V simultaneously as prayed for by him nor is he entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Regional Manager as he has not been selected by the Section Committee and more so he appeared in the interviews held in August, 1986 for promotion to Scale III posts before the Interview Committee comprising of senior officers other than Shri S. K. Soni, respondent No. 2, but could not qualify in the Interview. Moreover, respondent No. 2 was the Deputy General Manager (Per.) and as the Selection Committee was for the promotion of the officers to the post of Area Manager/deputy Chief Manager, his being a member of the Committee was appropriate. The allegation of the petitioner that S/shri S. P. Talwar and Surinder Mohan were executive committee/central Committee members of AIBEA affiliated unions/associations, has been denied. The respondent has further stated in the counter affidavit that under Section 7 (11) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of the bank vest in the Board of Directors who are entitled to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as correspondent new bank is authorised to exercise and do. In the absence of any definite rules and regulations governing the promotions from Managers to Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers as indicated by the petitioner, the articles of association of the existing bank enforced before the commencement of the bank shall be deemed to be the regulations made under sub-section 1 of Section 19 of the Act and shall have effect accordingly. The Board of Directors in their meeting held on 21. 5. 1982 laid down the criteria and requirements for promotions from the post of Managers to Deputy Chief Managers /assistant Regional Managers. Further the Filial Committee recommendations were not applicable to the officers of the respondent bank on the date when the. selection for the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers was made and accordingly the promotions have to be effective only on the basis of selection procedure from the level of Manager to Deputy Chief Managers/ Assistant Regional Managers and the procedure followed by the bank in making the selections in question was perfectly In consonance therewith. In view of this policy as laid down by the Board of Directors, it was not seniority subject to fitness. In fact there was no seniority list existing at that time and, therefore, the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition have been denied. As there was no seniority list, the bank had to Interview all the candidates who were eligible as per the eligibility criteria. It was denied that there was any motive for considering 118 candidates who were eligible as per eligibility criteria and the Interview conducted was to assess the suitability of each of the eligible candidates. The confidential records of the candidates were also made available to the Selection Committee. Although the relationship of respondent No. 2 with respondents 11 and 13 has been admitted, but it has been denied that any disciplinary proceedings against Shri A. K. Puri were pending at the relevant time. However, it has categorically been stated that respondent No. 2 was not associated with interview committee when Shri A. K. Soni and Shri A. K. Puri were interviewed. Both respondents 11 and 13 fulfilled the requisite qualifications and selected on merits. The promotions of respondents 3 to 34 have been made purely in accordance with the rules and the law. The decisions, of the members of the Interview Committee on the basis of the interviews were unanimous and not of any one member. There is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) SOME of the other respondents, other than respondent bank. have also filed counter affidavits and denied the allegations of the petitioner and supported the case of the respondent bank. There is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) SOME of the other respondents, other than respondent bank. have also filed counter affidavits and denied the allegations of the petitioner and supported the case of the respondent bank. However, at the time of hearing, they have relied upon and adopted the arguments of Dr. Anand Prakash, who appeared for the respondent bank. ( 10 ) MR. S. K. Soni, respondent No. 2, In his affidavit dated 9. 1. 1987, has specifically denied and stated that the allegations of the petitioner made against him are false and malicious and he has never threatened the petitioner as alleged by him. He has further stated that he did not associate himself in the interview committee when Shri A. K. Puri, respondent No. 11, and Shri A. K. Soni, respondent No. 13, were interviewed. ( 11 ) IT may be noticed here that this writ petition was filed on 30. 11. 1982 and came up for preliminary hearing on 2. 12. 1982. Thereafter It was allowed to be amended vide order dated 10. 12. 1982. On 13. 12. 1982 rule was ordered to issue in the main writ petition. Vide order dated 22. 2. 1983 passed in CM 5819/82 this court ordered that the appointments of the respondents shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. ( 12 ) IT appears, the petitioner was again allowed to amend the writ petition vide order dated 20. 1. 1987. On an application, being CM 1330/87 filed by the respondents, again, vide order dated 22. 4. 1987 the petitioner was allowed to file a fresh amended writ petition deleting certain prayer and excluding from the body of the petition any challenge to promotions of respondents 35 to 50. Again, on 10. 3. 1993, counsel for the petitioner sought permission of the court to delete para (v) of the prayer clause of the second amended petition and further stated that he would hot challenge the said promotions in the writ petition, which was granted. ( 13 ) HAVING this background in view. It is apparent that the petitioner has amended this writ petition many times and ultimately filed a revised amended writ petition to which reply and rejoinder have been filed. ( 14 ) ALTHOUGH, Mr. ( 13 ) HAVING this background in view. It is apparent that the petitioner has amended this writ petition many times and ultimately filed a revised amended writ petition to which reply and rejoinder have been filed. ( 14 ) ALTHOUGH, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, has attempted to raise all submissions which have been raised in the writ petition but his main thrust of argument was the respondent No. 2, Mr. S. K. Soni, who was a member of the Selection Committee constituted for filling up the vacancies of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers from the Managers, in June, 1982, participated in the selection proceedings/deliberations when respondent No. 11, Shri A. K. Puri (cousin of respondent No. 2) and respondent No. 13, Shri A. K. Soni (real brother of respondent No. 2) were Interviewed. Admittedly respondents 11 and 13 are the close relatives of respondent No. 2. Therefore, there was a constant conflict between the Interest and the duty of respondent No. 2 and at least reasonable likelihood of bias which itself is sufficient to invalidate the promotions of respondents 3 to 34: ( 15 ) ON the other hand. Dr. Anand Prakash, counsel for respondent No. l bank, has vehemently submitted that respondent No. 2 did not. participate in the proceedings and deliberations of selection of respondents 11 and 13 and in fact he withdrew himself from the Selection Committee when these two respondents were being interviewed by the Selection Committee. In these circumstances, no question of conflict of Interest and duty of respondent No. 2 arises and, therefore, there is no likelihood of bias. ( 16 ) IN order to determine the point in controversy between the parties firstly it will have to be determined whether or not respondent No. 2 withdrew from the selection of the candidates when respondents 11 and 13 were being interviewed by the Selection Committee. ( 17 ) IN the counter affidavit dated 18. 1. 1983 filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 bank to the show cause notice issued in the amended writ petition, it has been admitted that respondent No. 2 was the Deputy General Manager of the Bank and was a member of the Selection Committee who interviewed the candidates for promotion from Manager to Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers. The close relationship of respondent No. 2 with respondents 11 and 13 has been admitted. The close relationship of respondent No. 2 with respondents 11 and 13 has been admitted. In other words, there is an admission by the respondent bank that respondent No. 2 being a member of the Selection Committee interviewed the candidates for the promotion from Managers to Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers. However, subsequently, in the counter affidavit dated 14. 7. 1987 to the amended writ petition, the respondent No. 1 bank has changed its stand in entirety and it has been stated therein that respondent No. 2 was not associated with the Interview Committee when respondents 11 and 13 were being interviewed by the other members of the selection committee. It has, however, been admitted that respondents 11 and 13 are the cousin and real brother of respondent No. 2. In other words, the close relationship of both respondent No. 11, Shri A. K. Puri, and respondent No. 13, Shri A. K. Soni, has been admitted. However, the version of the respondent bank is that respondent No. 2 was the Deputy General Manager (Per.) and in accordance with the promotion policy laid down by the Board of Directors, the inclusion of respondent No. 2 in the Selection Committee was Inevitable and on doctrine of necessity he had to be included as a member and there is no way except to include him as no other person could be nominated in his place. The selection has been made out of all eligible candidates and Shri A. K. Puri, respondent No. 11, and Shri A. K; Soni, respondent No. 13 (both) were found meritorious and, therefore, were appointed after due selection by the Selection Committee. Since respondent No. 2 has not associated himself with the Interview of respondents 11 and 13 and other members of the Selection Committee were senior to respondent No. 2 and in the interview they found them meritorious, there is nothing wrong in their selection. ( 18 ) IT appears to me that the first affidavit filed by the respondent bank at earliest point of time. i. e. , 18. 1. 1983 should normally be given credence whereby it has been admitted that respondent No. 2 was a member of the Selection Committee and interviewed the candidates for promotion from Managers to Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers and the later affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 seems to be an afterthought. i. e. , 18. 1. 1983 should normally be given credence whereby it has been admitted that respondent No. 2 was a member of the Selection Committee and interviewed the candidates for promotion from Managers to Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers and the later affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 seems to be an afterthought. However, since the later affidavit has also been filed by the respondent bank, which is on record, the court has necessarily to judge which version of the two is correct. ( 19 ) THE matter was heard and judgment reserved by me on 21. 4. 1993 but while dictating the judgment, I experienced some difficulty In pronouncing the judgment and therefore I considered It appropriate In the Interest of justice to find out. from other members of the Selection Committee whether or not respondent No. 2 withdrew from participation In the Interview of candidates related to him, i. e. , respondents No. 11 and 113 and took part in any discussion of merits of such candidates and accordingly directed the other members of the Selection Committee to file affidavits to this effect vide my order dated 19. 5. 1993. Consequently, in compliance with this order dated 19. 5. 1993 Shri Amrit Rai, Chief Manager of the respondent Bankhas filed an affidavit enclosing therewith the affidavits of other members (viz. , Shri R. C. Suneja, Shri S. P. Talwar, Shri R. C. Kapoor, Dr. Surendra Mohan and Shri K. K. Sagar) of the Selection Committee. In all the affidavits of the other members of the Selection Committee, the deponents have deposed that they were the members of the Selection Committee for the selection of the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers held In 1982. According to them. Shri S. K. Soni. respondent No. 2, withdrew himself from participation at the time of interview of respondents 11 and 13 and did not take part in discussion of the merits of those candidates. ( 20 ) AN affidavit dated 16. 7. 1993 In reply to the affidavit dated 2. 7. 1993 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner whereby attempt has been made that the affidavits of other members of the Selection Committee should not be relied upon by this court for various reasons, e. g. , these have been typed on same typewriter. 7. 1993 In reply to the affidavit dated 2. 7. 1993 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner whereby attempt has been made that the affidavits of other members of the Selection Committee should not be relied upon by this court for various reasons, e. g. , these have been typed on same typewriter. Though these persons have been posted at various different places but have chosen to get their affidavits typed on a common typewriter and adopt the same language in their affidavits. No doubt by raising all such contentions, the petitioner has tried to raise suspicion In the mind of the court that they have endorsed the line of the respondent bank blindly with a view to sustain the selection and the affidavits filed by them are not genuine. ( 21 ) IN writ jurisdiction it is difficult for this court to adjudicate upon this question as it is a disputed question of fact. However, having regard to the first admission made by the respondent bank in the first affidavit that the respondent No. 2 took part in the proceedings of the Selection Committee when respondents 11 and 13 were Interviewed and it was not stated specifically at that time that he did not associate himself in the interview of respondents 11 and 13 and which stand was changed later by respondent bank does create a suspicion in my mind whether respondent No. 2 actually withdrew from the deliberations of Selection Committee when his relations, namely, respondents 11. and 13 were being interviewed by the Selection Committee. However, the suspicion cannot take place of the proof and, therefore, I proceed with the assumption and accordingly hold that respondent No. 2 withdrew himself from the deliberations when respondents 11 and 13 were being interviewed and did not take part In discussion of the merits of those two candidates as stated by members of the Selection Committee. ( 22 ) IT may, however, be noticed that there Is no denial to this fact by the respondent bank that respondent No. 2 announced at the outset before the start of the interview that respondents 11 and 13 were his close relations and that he offered to withdraw from the Selection Committee and that he was requested to carry on by the other members of the Selection Committee. It has further not been denied that respondent No. 2 did not participate at the time of drawing up of the panel and the select list of the candidates for the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers. On the other hand, since there was unanimity in the decision of the members of the Selection Committee, shows that respondent No. 2 participated in the preparation of the final select list. ( 23 ) THE matter does not rest here. Further question that arises for consideration is as to what Is the effect of withdrawal of respondent No. 2 from the participation in the interview of respondents 11 and 13 and non-participation of any discussion on merits of those candidates. ( 24 ) MR. Mukherjee, in this context, heavily relied upon a decision reported as Ashok Kumar Yadav and others etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and others etc. etc. (AIR. 1987 SC 454 ). This decision has been taken by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of five Hon ble Judges. In that case, selection made by Haryana Public Service Commission to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied Services was involved and the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside and quashed that selection and against this order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. In that case, one of the points taken by the petitioners, i. e. , bias, was similar to the one taken by the petitioner in the present case. In that case, one Shri R. C. Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur participated in the selection process, though one Trilok Nath Sharma who was related to Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and Shakuntala Rani and Balbir Singh both of whom were related to Shri R. C. Maiya, were candidates for selection. In that context, the following observations of the Supreme Court made in para 18 of the judgment may be quoted as under: "we must straightaway point out that A. K. Kraipak s case ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ) is a landmark in the development of administrative law and it has contributed in a large measure to the strengthening of the rule of law in this country. We would not like to whittle down in the slightest measure the vital principle laid down in this decision which has nourished the roots of the rule of law and injected justice and fair play into legality. There can be no doubt that if a selection committee is constituted for the purpose of selecting candidates on merits and one of the members of the Selection Committee is closely related to a candidate appearing for the selection, it would not be enough for such member merely to withdraw from participation in the Interview of the candidate related to him but he must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask the authorities to nominate another person in his place on the selection committee, because otherwise all the selections made would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of selection. But the situation here is a little different because the selection of candidates to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and allied services is being made not by any Selection Committee constituted for that purpose but it is being done by the Haryana Public Service Commission which is a Commission set up under Article 316 of the Constitution. It has further been held that "it is one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence that no man can be a judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias It is "in accordance with natural justice and commonsense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting". The question is not whether the judge Is actually biased or in fact decides partially butwhether there is a real likelihood of bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that. the decision is actually tainted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the declsion. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court. " ( 25 ) IN Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra), case ofa. K. Kraipak ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ) has been relied upon. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court. " ( 25 ) IN Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra), case ofa. K. Kraipak ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ) has been relied upon. Kraipak s case was a case of selection by the Selection Committee constituted under the rules and in that case selection was made from the officers some of them serving as Conservators of Forests and others as Assistant Conservators of Forests in the forest department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Forest Service, a service constituted in 1966 under Section 3 (1) of the All India Services Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder. One Naqlshbund, who was Chief Conservator of Forests, was one of the members of the Selection Committee which selected certain persons serving in Forest Department ofjammu and Kashmir although he himself was one of the candidates for appointment to the Indian Forest Service. However, he did not sit in the Selection Board when his number came but admittedly he did sit in the Board and participated in the deliberations when the names of other candidates were considered for selection. In that case it has further been admitted that he did participate in the Selection Board and he was also party to the preparation of the list of selected candidates in order of preference as required by Regulation 5. In those circumstances, the selection made by the Board was quashed. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in para 15 may be noticed which are as under: "it is unfortunate that Naqishbund was appointed as one of the members of the selection board. It is true that ordinarily the Chief Conservator of Forests in a State should be considered as the most appropriate person to be in the selection board. He must be expected to know his officers thoroughly, their weaknesses as well as their strength. His opinion as regards their suitability for selection to- the All India Service is entitled to great weight. But then under the circumstances it was improper to have included Naqishbund as a member of the selection board. He was one of the persons to be considered for selection. His opinion as regards their suitability for selection to- the All India Service is entitled to great weight. But then under the circumstances it was improper to have included Naqishbund as a member of the selection board. He was one of the persons to be considered for selection. It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. It is true that he did not participate in the deliberations of the committee when his name was considered. But then the very fact that he was a member of the selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the selection board. Further admittedly he participated in the deliberations of the selection board when the claims of his rivals particularly that of Basu was considered. He was also party to the preparation of the list of selected candidates in order of preference. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the selection board there was a conflict between his interest and duty. Under those circumstances it is difficult to believe that he could have been Impartial. The real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. We agree with the learned Attorney- General that a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of. human conduct. It was in the interest of Naqishbund to keep out his rivals in order to secure his position from further challenge. Naturally he was also interested in safeguarding his position while preparing the list of selected candidates. " ( 26 ) ACCORDING to Mr. human conduct. It was in the interest of Naqishbund to keep out his rivals in order to secure his position from further challenge. Naturally he was also interested in safeguarding his position while preparing the list of selected candidates. " ( 26 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the selection made by Selection Committee and not by Public Service Commission and the respondent No. 2 although withdrew himself from the participation in the Interview when his relations, namely, respondents 11 and 13 were interviewed, but he did not withdrew altogether from the Selection process and he was present and did not ask the authorities to name other person in his place in the Selection Committee and that he further associated himself for drawing up of a panel and the select list. Therefore, the present selection on the basis of Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra) must be struck down on the principle of likelihood of bias. ( 27 ) HOWEVER, Dr. Anand Prakash, senior counsel for respondent No. l, venemently, on the other hand, relied upon heavily on a case Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of Punjab and others {1991 Supp. (l) SCC 313}. In that case recruitment of 71 officers in Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services was Involved and selection was made by Public Service Commission at the behest of the State of Punjab and father, Shri J. R. Bansal, of one of the candidates, viz. , Shri V. M. Bansal (respondent No. 8) was a member of the Public Service Commission which conducted the interview. However, father did not participate in the deliberations when his son appeared for viva voce and no malafides had been shown against any members of the Commission and in those circumstances, the selection made by the Public Service Commission was held not to be vitiated on reasonable likelihood of bias by the Supreme Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the selection of Shri V. M. Bansal as P. C. S. Officer and he was required to compete again. In that context, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra) again and the following observations have been noticed by the Supreme Court. Some of the observations have already been quoted above by me. In that context, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra) again and the following observations have been noticed by the Supreme Court. Some of the observations have already been quoted above by me. given to that candidate should not be disclosed to him. "but the situation here is a little different because the selection of candidates to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and allied services is being made not by any Selection Committee constituted for that purpose but It is being done by the Haryana Public Service Commission which is a Commission set up under Article 316 of the Constitution. It is a commission which consists of a Chairman and a specified number, of members and is a Constitutional Authority, We do not think that the principle which requires that a member of a Selection Committee whose close relative is appearing for selection should decline to become a member of the selection committee or withdraw from it leaving it to the appointing authority to nominate another person in his place, need be applied in case of a Constitutional Authority like the Public Service Commission, whether Central or State. If a member of a Public Service Commission were to. withdraw altogether from the selection process on the ground that a close relative of his is appearing for selection, no other person save a member can be substituted in his place. And it may sometimes happen that no other member is available to take the place of such member and the functioning of the Public Service Commission may be affected. When two or more members of a Public Service Commission are holding a viva voce examination, they are functioning not as individuals but as the Public Service Commission. Of course, we must make it clear that when a close relative of a member of a Public Service Commission is appearing for interview, such member must withdraw from participation in the interview of that candidate and must not take part in any discussion in regard to the merits of that candidate and even the marks or credits " ( 28 ) NEXT reliance was placed by Dr. Anand Prakash on a case reported as Javid Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others {1984) SCC 631}. Anand Prakash on a case reported as Javid Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others {1984) SCC 631}. This case is distinguishable as this does not relate to the service matter but to the admission to the medical college. Moreover, the Chairman ofjammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission was made the Chairman of the Selection Committee with a view to giving more creditability and respectability to the Selection. Furthermore, In view of the law subsequently clarified and laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra) and subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, the Public Service Commission stands on high pedestal than the ordinary selection committees. ( 29 ) HEAVY reliance was placed by Dr. Anand Prakash on a decision reported as B. N. Nagarajan and others v. State of Mysore and others, etc. ( AIR 1966 SC 1942 ) to demonstrate that it is not unusual for the members of the Public Service Commission from abstaining from participating in the Interview of the candidates who is related to such members of the Public Service Commission and in those situations and circumstances, the appointment has been upheld. But, again, that case is a case of Public Service Commission, which is a constitutional authority and has been put up at higher pedestal than the ordinary selection committees. ( 30 ) IN the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and discussed above, I may examine the relevant facts in the present case. ( 31 ) IN the present case, as already discussed and noted, the selection of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers has been made by a selection committee appointed by the respondent No. 1 bank and one of the members of the Selection Committee was Shri S. K. Soni, i. e. , respondent No. 2 and respondents 11 and 13 were his cousin and brother. This relationship of respondents 2, 11 and 13 has been admitted by the respondent No. 1 bank in the counter affidavit and it cannot be denied that degree of relationship of respondents 11 and 13 with respondent No. 2, who was a member of the Selection Committee, is very close. This relationship of respondents 2, 11 and 13 has been admitted by the respondent No. 1 bank in the counter affidavit and it cannot be denied that degree of relationship of respondents 11 and 13 with respondent No. 2, who was a member of the Selection Committee, is very close. Although respondent No. 2 was a close relative of respondents 11 and 13 but he did not withdraw himself from the entire selection process though he withdrew and did not take part in the proceedings when respondents 11 and 13, his close relations, were interviewed. He further did not ask the bank authorities to nominate any other person in his place in the Selection Committee. There was unanimity of the members of the Selection Committee about the decision of selection of successful candidates for the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers which clearly shows that respondent No. 2 did associate with the preparation of final select list of the candidates in which his relations, namely, respondents 11 and 13 also figured. It has not been denied that he did not associate with the preparation of the final selection list. Furthermore, it is not the stand of the respondent bank that respondent No. 2 disclosed to the concerned members of the Selection Committee at the very outset that his two close relations were candidates and that further he offered to withdraw altogether from the entire process and that he asked the authorities to nominate any other person in his place in the Selection Committee. No doubt respondent No. 2 did not participate in the interview of respondents 11 and 13 but this itself can certainly have impact in the minds of other members of the Selection Committee. The petitioner in this case has alleged malafides not only against respondent no. 2 but also Shri S. P. Talwar and Shri Surinder Mohan, the two other members of the Selection Committee. He has alleged that he has become a victim because of the union rivalry. All the three members of the Selection Committee have acquired the present post because -hey were members of AIBEA union affiliated to CPI. No doubt such averments have been denied by the respondents. He has alleged that he has become a victim because of the union rivalry. All the three members of the Selection Committee have acquired the present post because -hey were members of AIBEA union affiliated to CPI. No doubt such averments have been denied by the respondents. In the writ petition It is difficult to give a finding whether the members of the Selection Committee was Inimical and biased against the petitioner but this cannot be denied that respondent No. 2, Shri S. K. Soni, participated in the deliberations of the Selection Committee while preparing the panel and select list of the selected candidates and in the background of the allegations of malafides this can lead to reasonable likelihood of bias n the mind of the petitioner that he will not have a fair selection from the Selection Committee so constituted. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the Selection Committee there is a conflict between his interest and duty. It is difficult to believe that respondent No. 2 could have been impartial. The question is not whether he is biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of the person. Therefore, I have to see whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he Is likely to have been biased. In the light of what is discussed above, the selection of respondents 3 to 34 by the Selection Committee in June 1982 for. the post of Deputy Chief Managers/ Assistant Regional Managers has necessarily to be declared invalid and quashed. ( 32 ) DR. Anand Prakash has made an attempt that the inclusion of respondent No. 2 was inevitable on account of principle of necessity. that he was Deputy General Manager (Per.) and was available. This submission of learned counsel for the respondent bank is belied by their own letter dated 16. 6. 1982 written by the General Manager which is to the effect that since Assistant General Manager (Per.) had to go to Bombay to attend an Important meeting of the Indian Banks Association on 9th and 10th June, 1982, Assistant General Manager (Iandc) was requested to be on the Interview Committee on these days. Further the Joint General Manager could not be present for the interviews on the afternoon of 10. 6. 1982 and Assistant General Manager (Credit) was associated in his place. Further the Joint General Manager could not be present for the interviews on the afternoon of 10. 6. 1982 and Assistant General Manager (Credit) was associated in his place. The Joint General Manager also could not present on 11. 6. 1982 and in his place, the Assistant General Manager (I and C) was associated. This shows the bank has been changing the members of the Selection Committee because of non-availability of one member or the other of the Selection Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the inclusion of respondent No. 2 was inevitable. He could have very well been withdrawn and any other person could have placed in his place. ( 33 ) DR. Anand Prakash again tried to show that the petitioner has failed miserably in the interview which is apparent from annexure R- 5 which shows the marks obtained by him in the interview. ( 34 ) ACCORDING to annexure R- 5, the petitioner has only got 20 marks out of 60 marks and the minimum pass marks required were 30, i. e. , 50%. This argument of learned counsel for the respondent-bank is also without any substance. As already discussed, for invalidating the selection there should not be actual bias, it is sufficient if there is likelihood of any bias. As already discussed the very fact that respondent No. 2 was a member of the Selection Committee must have its own impact on the decision of the Selection Committee and in this process the petitioner may have been a victim of bias of the members of the Selection Committee, which has resulted in the awarding of low marks to him. ( 35 ) NEXT question that arises for consideration is whether the whole selection should be quashed. In view of the authoritative law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav s case (supra) and in these facts and circumstances, particularly when respondent No. 2 has not withdrawn altogether from the entire selection process and did not ask the authorities to nominate any other person in his place in the Selection Committee, the whole selection made by the Selection Committee in June 1982 for the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers has to be declared void ab initio. Furthermore, human mind is not like a computer which works mathematically. Furthermore, human mind is not like a computer which works mathematically. Had some other man being the member of the Selection Committee in place of respondent No. 2 Mr. S. K. Soni, it cannot be predicted how the Selection Committee would have worked and who would have been selected. ( 36 ) I am fully conscious of the fact that the selection to the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Manager was made in June 1982 and invalidating of such selection after 12 years at this stage might cause lot of inconvenience to the respondent bank and selected candidates. However, it may be noticed that the petitioner filed this writ petition in 1982 itself immediately thereafter and this court also ordered that the appointment/selection shall be subject to orders of this court in this petition. This case was also ordered to be heard early. However, unfortunately this could not be heard early. In these circumstances the petitioner should not be penalised for no fault of his because of non-hearing of the petition by court for so long. ( 37 ) SINCE the petitioner succeeds on the aforementioned ground, it is not necessary to decide the other contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, which are left open. ( 38 ) IN the light of what is discussed above, I allow the writ petition. The promotions of respondents 3 to 34 to the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers are quashed. The respondent No. 1 bank is further directed to make fresh selection in accordance with law and in case the petitioner is ultimately found suitable for selection and appointment, he will be promoted with effect from 11. 6. 1982, the date when respondents 3 to 34 were earlier promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Managers/assistant Regional Managers. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. ( 39 ) THE petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of Rs. 3,000/-, payable by the respondent No. 1 bank.