G. R. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner who is a Superintending Engineer (Civil) under the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC, for short) inter alia prays for quashing the impugned order dated the 29th September, 1995 issued by the Director (HRD) of the Damodar Valley Corporation whereby the petitioner was denied promotion and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) although they were junior to the petitioner,-their position in the gradation list being 26 and 27 respectively as against the position of the petitioner at serial No. 25. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been unduly deprived of promotion and has been arbitrarily superseded by those who are junior to him in the gradation list as stated above. The respondents, the DVC authorities however deny that there was any undue discrimination or arbitrariness in the matter. ( 2 ) SECTION 60 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 empowers the Corporation, with previous sanction of the Central Government, to make regulations for making appointment and promotion of its officers. The corporation accordingly made regulations governing the recruitment, conditions of service, pay, allowance etc. of its employees. Regulation 14 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations provides that promotion shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority, and shall in the case of promotion to class-I, be made ordinarily after considering the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, for short) to be set up for the purpose. It is also provided in the said regulation 14 that the function and procedure of DPC shall be similar to such committees functioning under the Central Government with suitable modifications. It is also provided in the said regulation 14 that the function and procedure of DPC shall be similar to such committees functioning under the Central Government with suitable modifications. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the instructions/office circular issued under regulation 14 promotions to or within Class-I posts above the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent thereto were being given after considering the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee composed of the General Manager, the Head of the Department concerned and the Director of Personnel and the procedures to be observed by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the case of promotion to selection posts above the rank of the Executive Engineer were that the DPC would first decide the number of employees eligible for promotion who should be considered for inclusion in the panel and the field of choice must be restricted to feeder posts alone and wherever possible should extend to five times of the number of vacancies expected to occur within the next 12 months. The DPC might also prescribe the minimum seniority for eligibility. The employees in the field of selection were required to be classified by the DPC as 'fit' or 'not fit' on the basis of their merit as determined by their respective records of service and the consideration was required to be the suitability of the candidate for the higher post. It was further required that whenever the recommendation involved supersession of an officer the reason for the supersession should be recorded. Personal interview by the DPC was not normally necessary. The ACR form (Annual Confidential Report form) allots points for different kinds of ratings and specifies under clause 4. 4 the criteria for eligibility of a candidate for promotion which are inter alia as follows; (1) at least 'good' report against factors 5. 12, 5. 13, 5. 14 and 5. 15, (ii) at least 'satisfactory' report against the remaining clauses and (iii) at least 64 points on over all assessment and (iv) there should be no 'poor'/'below average' rating against any item. 12, 5. 13, 5. 14 and 5. 15, (ii) at least 'satisfactory' report against the remaining clauses and (iii) at least 64 points on over all assessment and (iv) there should be no 'poor'/'below average' rating against any item. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that sometime in 1993 the appraisal system for promotion which was being so long followed was suddenly changed by DVC authorities and an Interview Board was introduced and in January 1995 the petitioner was informed that interview for selection by a Board of officers for the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) would be held on 2nd February, 1995 and as the name of the petitioner was in the zone of consideration for promotion he should appear in the interview for selection. In the said Board there were four members, namely, the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of West Bengal,professor of the Civil Engineering Department, I. I. T, Kharagpur, both of whom were external members and the Secretary, DVC and the Director (Projects) DVC, both of whom were departmental officers. The said Board consisting of external exports and departmental officers interviewed the officers falling within the zone of consideration and awarded marks in respect of each candidate against different items, such as, personality and appearance, ability to communicate, aptitude/behaviour, confidence level to handle situational problems, academic/professional qualification, work experience/knowledge, knowledge with regard to the latest development in the relative field, application of experience/knowledge and suitability for higher appointment. It is the contention of the petitioner that by introducing this new appraisal and interview system the DVC authorities have deviated not only from the procedure which was being so long followed but also acted centrary to regulation 14. It is however the contention of the DVC authorities that by introducing this new appraisal and interview system, far from acting contrary to regulation 14, they have only introduced better system within the framework of the regulation 14 to assess the suitability of the candidates falling within the zone of consideration for promotion. It is however the contention of the DVC authorities that by introducing this new appraisal and interview system, far from acting contrary to regulation 14, they have only introduced better system within the framework of the regulation 14 to assess the suitability of the candidates falling within the zone of consideration for promotion. it is also the contention of the respondents that in September 1993 the Corporation took a decision that selection for the post of Superintending Engineer and above, as also for equivalent posts in other cadres, other than the non-engineering cadres of the Corporation, shall be made on the basis of merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority, through an interview to be held by a high level selection committee to be formed from time to time with senior Corporation officers and also eminent outside professionals. In my opinion the introduction of the new system cannot be said to be violative of regulation 14. Regulation 14 as we have seen, also says that promotion shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority. These are the criteria for promotion under regulation 14. If for making an assessment of a candidate with reference to the above factors the existing method is changed and is substituted by another method aimed at attaining the same purpose, obviously the same cannot be said to be any violation of regulation 14. It appears from the relevant records produced and the xerox copies which are placed on record in this case, that the Interview Board awarded marks against each candidate in respect of the different items regarding suitability for promotion. The petitioner and the other candidates including the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, numbering seven in all were interviewed by the said Board of experts on 2. 2. 95 and the Board's rating in respect of each candidate and the ACR of each candidate for the last three years were considered by the DPC on 24. 2. 95. The ACR for three years in respect of each candidate was considered by the DPC against an allotment of 60 marks for the same and the remaining 40 marks were earmarked for the proportionate reflection of the assessment made by the Interview Board in respect of each candidate. 2. 95. The ACR for three years in respect of each candidate was considered by the DPC against an allotment of 60 marks for the same and the remaining 40 marks were earmarked for the proportionate reflection of the assessment made by the Interview Board in respect of each candidate. It is the case of the respondents that the DPC fixed a cut of point of 70% duly approved by the Corporation as the Bench mark for selecting officers for promotion. It appears that on the basis of average assessment of ACR for three years the petitioner obtained 40 marks against the total 60 marks and his score in the interview before the Interview Board came to the ratio of 28 marks against the total of 40 marks and combining these two scores of the petitioner, namely, 40 for ACR assessment and 23 for interview the petitioner obtained a total of 68 marks as against 100 and he thus failed to secure, in the aggregate, 70% of the marks which was the Bench mark, namely, the minimum required mark for qualifying for promotion and accordingly the DPC did not recommend him for promotion while they recommended the other six candidates including the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) as they scored more than the Bench Mark and were found fit for promotion. In this connection it must be said even at the cost of repetition that the DVC authorities did not commit any wrong or irregularity by introducing the system of assessment through an Interview Board apart from the consideration of ACR. As we have seen such Interview Board was composed of four members of whom two were experts from outside, namely, from IIT, Kharagpur and the Government of West Bengal. The various items for relating in respect of each candidate as dealt with by the Interview Board also show that the system must be a very thorough one focussing attention on the various aspects of the performance and attainment of each individual candidate and I find no reason why one should find fault with this system or say that it is inconsistent with regulation 14. ( 4 ) IT is the petitioner's contention that sometime after the interview held in February 1995 the petitioner received a letter dated 13th March, 1995 from the Deputy Manager (Con.) informing him that he had been rated as satisfactory/good/very good against all the merit rating factors in the ACR for the period from 1. 4. 93 to 31. 3. 94 except the remark made under the general assessment column No. 6/7 by the reporting officer/reviewing officer that 'his overall performance should be improved upon before he could be recommended for promotion'. The petitioner made representation against the said adverse remark regarding general assessment and as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition the said adverse remark was expunged by the order of the Chairman in December, 1995 after consideration of his representation. It is however the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not suffer anything by reason of the said adverse remark inasmuch as no point was allotted for such adverse remark in the general assessment column and that, point, for the purpose of consideration of promotion is allotted only for the assessment code, that is, A, B, C, D and E against the relevant columns under item No. 5 but not for any other remark as recorded in the column No. 6 for general assessment. The ACR proforma which is annexure-B to the writ petition shows that the merit rating factors for the purpose of consideration of promotion are item Nos. 5. 1 to 5. 15 and in considering the question of eligibility for promotion the ratings of these factors are taken into consideration in the manner indicated in item Nos. 4. 1 to 4. 4 of the ACR proforma. Therefore it will be seen that for considering the question whether a candidate is fit for promotion the ratings in ACR item No. 5. 1 to 5. 15 alone are taken into consideration and there is no provision for giving any marks for the purpose for any remark under item No. 6 which is meant for general assessment. Therefore it will be seen that for considering the question whether a candidate is fit for promotion the ratings in ACR item No. 5. 1 to 5. 15 alone are taken into consideration and there is no provision for giving any marks for the purpose for any remark under item No. 6 which is meant for general assessment. It is the case of the respondents that on the basis of the calculation of the prescribed marks emanating from the remarks in the relevant columns for merit rating factors in the ACR and considering the average of such marks as projected by the ACRs for three years the DPC arrived at the mathematical calculation of the petitioner's score under the column of average assessment of the last three years available ACR out of 60 marks. That being so and when it appears that in calculating the marks on the basis of the ACR mark in the general assessment column has got no bearing, it is evident that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance in the matter of assessment of the score on the basis of his ACR markings. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that even if no marks are awarded for the remarks in the general assessment column yet any adverse remark in the general assessment column is likely to influence the assessment about the suitability of the petitioner. This however is not so. We will see from the proforma of the ACR, annexure-B to the writ petition that even if a candidate's score for any of the merit retting factors is not 'below average' or 'poor', yet it is possible that on a calculation of the aggregate of the points awarded on all the reckonable factors in item No. 5 he may not score 64 points as a result of which although there is no adverse remark like 'poor' or 'below average' in any of the concerned items yet in the aggregate his score may fall below the limit prescribed for qualifying for promotion, and then again the DPC must consider the scores of the candidate under the reckonable items of the ACR for three years. By calculation of the average of the ACR-points for three years and by adding up the same to his interview score the petitioner failed to attain the required minimum percentage of marks which is stated to be the Bench mark for promotion and that is why the DPC could not recommend him for promotion. The petitioner therefore cannot make any legitimate grievance. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even if the adverse remark in the general assessment column is not taken into consideration by the DPC, yet this may create an adverse impression in the minds of the members of the DPC as a result of which his markings on the reckonable item might have been influenced by such impression. In my opinion this argument is not tenable, because, as we have seen, the DPC does not award any mark and it only makes a calculation out of the marks already awarded in the ACR for three years and therefore any adverse impression of the DPC even if created by any remark in the general assessment column will have no scope of reflecting anything in the assessment of the candidate by the DPC which has to be done on the basis of the marks or ratings already awarded to the petitioner by the reporting/reviewing officer in respect of the rating-items which alone are to be taken into consideration by the DPC in assessing the value of the ACR in respect of the candidate. As regards the interview by the Interview Board it is nobody's case that the ACR of the petitioner was placed or was required to be placed before the Interview Board for consideration. The Interview Board made their assessment on various aspects regarding the suitability of the petitioner on the basis of their own impression and not on ACR, and the marks awarded by the Interview Board were reflected in the assessment of the petitioner by the DPC by converting the same into a particular ratio. Therefore I do not find that the petitioner has any good reason to ask the court to interfere with the assessment of the DPC which has been made on the basis of the score of the petitioner as awarded by the Interview Board and also on the ratings in the ACR for three years in respect of reckonable items excluding the item No. 6, 'general assessment'. I have already noted above that the introduction of the Interview Board which consists of external experts and departmental officers cannot be objected to. This rather seems to be a step in the right direction for an impartial assessment of the suitability of the candidate for promotion on consideration of relevant factors. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner did not raise any protest or objection to the constitution of the Interview Board and rather appeared before the Interview Board without any objection or protest. That being so he cannot later make a grievance that the Interview Board should not have been introduced into the picture. The petitioner has also introduced in the writ petition an incident concerning him while he was the liaison officer for SC/st and it is his contention that he had some unhappy incident with the Director HRD and the said Director influenced the members of the Interview Board later. This is only a speculation and the court cannot take cognizance of any such speculative allegation. Moreover a departmental enquiry was also made in respect of the alleged incident and the petitioner's grievance was not substantiated in that enquiry. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that while the regulation requires that the petitioner's seniority will have to be taken into consideration, as a matter fact no mark was awarded for his seniority. Well this is also an untenable contention. There is no system for awarding marks for seniority. The seniority has definitely been taken into consideration inasmuch as it is because of his seniority the petitioner was found to be within the zone of consideration and that is why he was also considered for promotion along with others. He was not found fit for promotion after due consideration of his case and that being so there is no score for making any grievance that his seniority was not taken into consideration. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the total marks allotted for Interview was excessive and therefore the entire promotional process is vitiated for that reason alone. Well, the petitioner has not taken any such plea in his writ petition and that being so there is no scope of entertaining now any such contention within the framework of the writ petition. Well, the petitioner has not taken any such plea in his writ petition and that being so there is no scope of entertaining now any such contention within the framework of the writ petition. Moreover it is not a case of admission into any educational institution for study nor of entering into service as a fresh appointee. It is a case of promotion from one post to higher post and here no written examination is at all taken for assessing the suitability for such promotion as is involved in the present case. Therefore there is no scope of entertaining any grievance about the marks allotted for interview, the sole object of which is to assess the suitability of the candidate for promotion to higher post. It is next argued that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and therefore he should have been given promotion under the Scheduled Caste quota. It is however the case of the respondents that the promotional post involved in the present case is not within the purview of reservation and reservation does not apply to such post. Nothing has been placed before me to show that reservation applies to such promotional post in the DVC. But even then the question of reservation does not help the petitioner because the petitioner has been found to be not fit for promotion. Therefore if he is not found fit for promotion the question of giving him promotion under any reserved quota also cannot arise. In view of all that have been discussed above I find no reason for this court to interfere in this matter. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost is however ordered. Petition dismissed.