JUDGMENT - Dr. SARAF B.P., J.:—All India Central Bank Officers' Federation is an All India Organisation comprising of several units of officers' associations of the Central Bank of India which are registered trade unions. By this writ petition, it has challenged the impugned Circular No. CO:92-93:3 dated 1-4-1993 issued by the Industrial Relations and Policy Division of the respondent Central Bank of India amending Clause 11(6) of the Promotion Policy for Officers which provides that where a officer fails to get selected for promotion in two successive attempts he will be considered for further promotion only after completion of two years and for every successive attempt thereafter there will be minimum gap of two years. In the amended clause, this restriction has been lifted in case of officers who obtain rating of B+ and above i.e. 50 per cent and above in the interview. Under the amended clause such officers are not debarred from participation in the next promotion process and are eligible to participate in subsequent interviews to be held thereafter so long as they obtain rating of B+ and above in the interview. 2. The grievance of the petitioner Federation is that as a result of the above amendment, only those officers who could not secure rating B+ and above in the interview and did not get selected are debarred for two years from participating in the next promotion process. All other similarly situated candidates who fails to get selected but happen to secure the rating B+ and above in the interview are not so debarred. It is contended that such classification of the candidates who fails to get selected into two categories purely on the basis of their performance in the interview ignoring altogether their performance in all other factors such as seniority, educational/professional qualification, performance appraisal is most arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further contended that a candidate who might do quite well and secure a high rating in other assessments but fail to secure B+ or above in the interview and get selected on overall assessment would be disqualified from participating in next promotion process whereas another officer with poorer performance in other factors and overall assessment would be eligible if he has secured rating of B+ and above in the interview. The grievance of the petitioners is that the performance in the interview has been given the sole weightage for the purpose of allowing the unsuccessful candidates to participate in the next promotion process ignoring altogether the overall performance and the aggregate rating of the candidate concerned. This classification, according to the petitioners, is most arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, reliance is place on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana)1, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 454, (Mahinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab)2, (1991)1 S.C.C. 662 and (Munindra Kumar and Ors. v. Rajiv Govil)3, (1991)3 S.C.C. 368 . 3. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that four factors are identified as relevant for promotion decisions in the respondent bank depending on the grade to which the employee concerned belongs. These are (a) Seniority; (b) Educational/professional qualification; (c) performance and (d) potential. He has also drawn my attention to clause 5.1 of the Promotion Policy wherein the weightage for various promotions are indicated. According to him, the promotion is based on an overall assessment of the candidate taking into account the various factors including interview and the overall performance. Clause 11.6 of the Promotion Policy is relevant only for the purpose of allowing the unsuccessful candidates to participate in the next promotion process. In other words, the contention of the Counsel for the respondents is that the interview is not a sole factor in the selection process. It is only one of the factors with specified weightage. The aggregate performance of the candidate is taken into account for the purpose of promotion. Interview performance has been made the sole criteria only for the purpose of debarring the unsuccessful candidates from participating in the promotion process for two years. This , according to the learned Counsel, does not go to the root of the promotion policy and cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I have perused the promotion policy for the officers. In clause 1.4 of the said policy, it is stated: “Four factors have been identified as relevant for promotion decisions in the Bank. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I have perused the promotion policy for the officers. In clause 1.4 of the said policy, it is stated: “Four factors have been identified as relevant for promotion decisions in the Bank. They are: (a) Seniority; (b) Educational/Professional qualifications; (c) Performance; and (d) Potential Clauses 1.5 and 1.6 deal with the weightage accorded to seniority and educational/professional qualification respectively in promotion from Junior Management Scale I to Middle Management Scale II and for promotion up to Middle Management Scale III. These clauses read: “1.5 The highest weightage has been accorded to seniority for promotion from Junior Management Scale I to Middle Management Scale II. The weightage which is 30% at this level progressively declines to 10% for promotions from Middle Management Scale III to Senior Management Scale IV. For promotions beyond this level, seniority has not been given any weightage. 1.6 Educational/Professional qualifications have been given a weightage of 10% for promotion up to Middle Management Scale III. Beyond this level no weightage is given for educational/professional qualifications.” In Clause 5.1 the weightage (percentage points) for various factors in the promotions are indicated in the form of a chart which runs as follows: Weightage (Percentage points) Seniority for Performance Movement Service Service Educational/ Performance Potential in the as EM/ Professional Appraisal scale Acctts. qualifications (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) From Junior Mgmt. 10 20 10 30 30 Grade Scale I to Mi- ddle Mgmt. Scale II. From Middle Mgmt. 10 10 10 40 30 Scale II to Middle Mgmt.Scale III. From Middle Mgmt. 10 10 -- 40 40 Scale III to Senior Mgmt. Scale IV. From Senior Mgmt. -- -- -- 50 50 Scale IV to Senior Mgmt. Scale V. From Senior Mgmt. -- -- -- 50 50 Scale V to Top Exe- cutive Scale VI. From Top Executi- -- -- -- 50 50 ve Scale VI to Top Exec. Scale VII. Clause 11.6, prior to its amendment by the impugned circular, read as follows: “11.6 — Where an officer fails to get selected for promotion in 2 successive attempts, he will get considered for further promotion only after a gap of 2 years. From Top Executi- -- -- -- 50 50 ve Scale VI to Top Exec. Scale VII. Clause 11.6, prior to its amendment by the impugned circular, read as follows: “11.6 — Where an officer fails to get selected for promotion in 2 successive attempts, he will get considered for further promotion only after a gap of 2 years. Thereafter for every successive attempts there will be a minimum gap of 2 years.” For the above clause, the following amended clauses was substituted with effect from 1-4-1992 by the impugned circular dated 1-4-1992: “Where an officer fails to get selected for promotion in 2 successive attempts, he will be considered for further promotion only after a gap of 2 years. Thereafter for every successive attempt there will be a minimum gap of 2 years. However, if such an officer obtains rating of B+ and above i.e. 50% and above in the interview, he will not be debarred for participation in the next promotion process and will be eligible to participate in subsequent interviews to be held thereafter so long as he obtains rating of B+ and above in the interview. However, number of such candidates to be considered for interview shall remain within the range of 3 to 4 times of the number of vacancies for which promotion process has been undertaken as per provision 3.7(b) of Promotion Policy for Officers.” (Emphasis supplied) The challenge in this petition is to the italics portion of the above amended clause. 4A. On a comparative reading of the original Clause 11.6 and the amended Clause 11.6, it is clear that thought both the original and the amended clauses debar a candidate who fails to get selected in two successive attempts for two years, in the amended clause this bar is lifted in case of officers who obtain rating B+ and above or 50 per cent and above in the interview. In fact, in the amended Clause 11.6, the restriction of two years operates only in case of those unsuccessful candidates who fail to obtain rating B+ and above in the interview. They are debarred of whatever be their performance in other tests. All other unsuccessful candidates are now out of Clause 11.6. In other words, amended clause 11.6 applies only to those unsuccessful officers who fail to obtain the rating of B+ and above in the interview irrespective of their aggregate performance. 5. They are debarred of whatever be their performance in other tests. All other unsuccessful candidates are now out of Clause 11.6. In other words, amended clause 11.6 applies only to those unsuccessful officers who fail to obtain the rating of B+ and above in the interview irrespective of their aggregate performance. 5. There is no controversy about the fact that in the promotion policy, for the purpose of promotion, not only the interview but various other factors are taken into consideration. Appropriate marks have been assigned to each factor for different categories of officers and the weightage which is accorded to each such factor is indicated in the policy itself. It is only for the purpose of allowing unsuccessful officers from the participating in the next promotion process that in the amended Clause 11.6 all other factors have been given a good-bye and the performance in interview or the rating in the interview has been kept as the sole criteria. This apparently is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no justification for classifying unsuccessful candidates for promotion into two categories for the purpose of participation in the next interview process solely on the basis of their performance in the interview ignoring altogether their aggregate performance. Evidently, in such a situation, rating in the interview cannot be the sole criteria for deciding the eligibility of the unsuccessful candidates for participation in the next promotion process, when under the promotion policy itself various factor with remarked weightage are relevant for the purpose of promotion. The classification is not founded on any intelligible differentia. 6. In view of the above, I am of the clear opinion that the italics portion of amended clause 11.6 which provides that if an officer obtains a rating of B+ and above that is 50 per cent and above in the interview, he will not be debarred from the participation in the next promotion process and will be eligible to participate in subsequent interviews to be held thereafter so long as he gets rating of B+ and above in the interview, create an arbitrary and unreasonable classification between similarly situated employees of the respondent Bank, which cannot be sustained under Article 14 of the Constitution. As this portion is severable from the rest of Clause 11.6, I declare the said portion to be ultra vires and illegal. The rest of the clause shall remain operative as it is. 7. As this portion is severable from the rest of Clause 11.6, I declare the said portion to be ultra vires and illegal. The rest of the clause shall remain operative as it is. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Writ petition allowed. -----