Judgment : AR. Lakshmanan, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 8. 1994 made in Writ Petition No.4220 of 1985 by P.S. Mishra, J. (as he then was). The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent filed Writ Petition No.4220 of 1985 for quashing the clauses 3 (b) (ii) and (iii) of Memo No.142 of 1984, dated 20th March, 1984 for promotion from scale II. He contended that the Banker’s policy in awarding additional marks to officers in the junior management cadre scale I with qualifications like Chartered Accountants, Law qualification etc., is illegal, that those officers should not be given additional marks and that the grant of additional marks for promotion violate Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It is useful to extract the promotion policy from Junior ManagementGrade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II, which had been finalised after discussion with CBOA. The norms for promotion for the year 1984 in Canara Bank are furnished as below: “CANARA BANK MEMO NO.142/84, PERSONAL MANAGEMENT SECTION, PERSONAL WING HO BANGALORE 560 002 ... ... 1. Vacancies ...... 2. Eligibility All Accountants promoted or appointed as Probationary Accountants on or before 1. 1978 are eligible. 3. Weightage for various factors: .(a) Weightage for service and performance shall be in the ratio of 60: 40 (b) Marks for service: (i) marks for service will be awarded at the rate of 5 marks per year of completed service. For completed calendar quarter, 1 1/4 4 marks will be awarded. For this purpose 1 1/2 months and above will be treated as full quarter and less than 11/2 months shall be ignored. .(ii) For those officers who have completed 7 years of service in scale I (i.e. as officers, computed from the date of probation) as on 1. 1984, 4 additional marks will be awarded, as a one time measure. (iii) For those officers, who are recruited as Chartered Accountants/Technical Fieled Officers and Law Officers 10 additional marks will be awarded as a one time measure. HOWEVER, the total marks for service including the additional marks mentioned above shall be restricted to 60.” 2. As per the above policy all the Accountants promoted or appointed as Probationary Officers on or before 1. HOWEVER, the total marks for service including the additional marks mentioned above shall be restricted to 60.” 2. As per the above policy all the Accountants promoted or appointed as Probationary Officers on or before 1. 1978 have been made eligible and for purpose of weightage for service and for performance, while the performance marks and leave marks under clause 3 (e) have been applied to all officers in a uniform manner, the marks for service and educational qualifications have been designed in a very unfair and discriminatory manner. Because of the arbitrary provisions followed under clause 3 (b) (ii) and (iii) promotion from scale I to scale II was unjustifiably denied to the respondent. It is the further case of the respondent that as per the memo under paragraph 3 (b) (i) service marks have been given as 5 per year of service and applied on a uniform basis this protects the seniority of the officers and favours officers, who are senior in service which is as per Canara Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979, which states that promotion should be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Clause 3(b)(ii) gives an additional bonus of four marks to those officers who had completed seven years of service. As this is in addition to their service marks, it gives these officers an unfair advantage in the overall position along with their performances and leave marks against their marginally junior officers promoted in the same year. Clause 3(b)(iii) gives additional bonus of ten marks for those officers, recruited as Chartered Accountants, Technical Fieled Officers or Law Officers. This too is arbitrary and discriminatory, as these marks are restricted to only a small minority of 15 officers or so, thus totally ignoring the vast majority of 15 officers, as no provision for awarding marks for their qualification like Graduation, Banking Diploma, etc., had been made. According to the respondent, this clause was designed to benefit only those handful of officers, who were recruited as specialists and it has virtually ensured their promotion, the additional ten amount to exactly two years service marks further all these 15 officers who had been promoted in 1984 were only juniors to the respondent/writ petitioner by six months and by awarding these 10 marks, the bank had virtually ensured their out of turn promotion. By their service marks and performance marks alone these officers could never had overtaken the respondent but for Regulation 3 (b) (ii) and (iii). The respondent preferred an appeal before the management but it was dismissed. While so, the management has revised the policy and as per memo 53/85, the Bank has removed clause 3 (b) (ii) and (iii) of 1984 policy, retaining only clauses 3 (b) (i) and 3 (c) which goes to prove the contention of arbitrariness of 1984 formula. With the above contentions, the respondent filed the abovesaid writ petition for the following relief: “... to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent, pertaining to the promotion formula of 1984 from scale I - II and quash the Regulations 3 (b) (ii) and (iii) of service promotion policy and pass....” 3. The writ petition was resisted by the apellant/man-agement through their Divisional Manager (Personal). In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.19, read with sub- Sec.(2) of Sec.12 of the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 the Board of Directors of Canara Bank in accordance with the approval and sanction of the Central Government made certain Regulation in the year 1979, and after consulting the Reserve Bank of India called Canara Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1979, laying down the terms and conditions of service applicable to all officers/employees of the Bank. The Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations inter alia provided for matters relating to determination of grades of officers, categorisation of posts, scales of pay, allowances perquisites, fitment, appointment, confirmation, probation, promotion seniority and termination and the like. In terms of Regulation 4 (1) the officers employed in the Bank are placed in four Grades, depending upon their scales of pay, which are as under: The promotions for the year 1984 for all grades and scales were effected according to the policy framed in terms of Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations (Memo No.142 of 1984, dated 20.3.1984). having regard Government guidelines on the subject. Likewise, the promotion policy for the year 1985 was laid down as in Memo No.53 of 1983, dated 12. 1985. having regard Government guidelines on the subject. Likewise, the promotion policy for the year 1985 was laid down as in Memo No.53 of 1983, dated 12. 1985. Regulation 17 of the Canara Bank Officers’ Service Regulation, providing promotion is in the following terms: ”17 (1) Promotions to all Grades of officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board of Directors from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any. (2) foravoidance of doubts, it is clarified that this Regulation shall also apply to promotion of any category of employees to Junior Management Grade.“ As on 1. 1984 the following guidelines laid down by the Government on 27. 1979 were in existence: 1. the Board shall formulate the eligibility criteria and details of processes to be employed for promotion of officers from one scale following provisions subject to the following provisions this would be done not later than nine months from the appointed date till such time, as the new promotion policy is formulated. The Bank may, subject to the approval of the Board, continue with the existing promotion practices. 2. Subject to the availability of vacancies all promotions whether from one scale to another or one grade to another shall be on the basis of merit with weightages, if any for seniority, educational/ professional qualifications, etc., as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. 3. The minimum eligibility in terms of number of years of service for promotion from one officer’s scale to another shall generally by as under: .(a) From Junior Management Grade to middle management grade scale II 7 years of satisfactory service. .(b) From middle management - scale II to middle management Grade scale III - 5 years of satisfactory service in scale II. .(c) From middle management scale III to senior management Grade scale iv - 5 years of satisfactory services in scale III. .(d) No minimum services in prescribed for movement from scale IV to scale V. (e) Promotion from senior management Grade to Top Executive Grade should be from these officers who have put in not less man five years’ satisfactory service in the senior management Grade i.e. scales IV and V together.” 4. .(d) No minimum services in prescribed for movement from scale IV to scale V. (e) Promotion from senior management Grade to Top Executive Grade should be from these officers who have put in not less man five years’ satisfactory service in the senior management Grade i.e. scales IV and V together.” 4. Though it would have been perfectly open for the Board to effect promotions on the basis of the policy framed from time to time, having regard to the Government guidelines, it has been a practise of the Bank to formulate the policy applicable to a particular year. After consultation with the recognised association (majority trade union of officers), representing the officers of the Bank and arriving at an agreement with the Association. This was being done with a view to ascertain the wishes and views of the officers with respect to their promotion and to ensure that their policy is acceptable in general to the majority of the officers and to minimise the scope for grievances by any section of the officers against the policy. The policy framed after discussion with the recognised Association is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors who approve the same, having regard to the Government guidelines, equitableness and reasonableness of the policy. Pursuant to the above practice the promotion policy for the year 1984 was framed after discussion and settlement with the Canara Bank Officers’ Association, representing majority of the officers of the Bank. It is the case of the management that promotions were effected pursuant to and strictly in accordance with the above promotion policy laid down by the Bank, after consultation and agreement with the recognised association, representing majority of the officer employees of which the petitioner was also an office bearer the respondent did not demand or protest against the promotion policy but subjected himself to the process pursuant to the promotion policy and did not come out successful thereon the Government has also issued a guideline to the effect that promotions from one scale to another or one grade to another shall be on the basis of merit with weightages, if any. for seniority, educational and professional qualifications, etc., as may be prescribed by the Board. During the year 1984, it was found that only 483 officers had put in seven years of completed service as officers in the bank as on 1. for seniority, educational and professional qualifications, etc., as may be prescribed by the Board. During the year 1984, it was found that only 483 officers had put in seven years of completed service as officers in the bank as on 1. 1984 and were eligible for promotions, as per the Government’s guidelines clause 3(a). As this was less than three times, the number of vacancies identified by the Bank, the eligibility criteria was relaxed in terms of clause 4 of the guidelines to include all officers promoted/recruited to scale I on or before 1. 1978. The Officers, who had completed seven years in scale I were those who fulfilled eligibility criteria as per Government guidelines. On account of relaxing eligibility, norms many Junior Officers like the respondent were also brought within the zone of consideration and but for such relaxation, the respondent would not have been anywhere near the zone of consideration. According to the management in order to offer better opportunities to seniors, who have experience and put in the required number of years of service for being promoted, as per the Government guidelines and also pursuant to the desire of the majority of the officers represented through the officers, who had completed the normal stipulated period of eligibility. The additional marks awarded for such classes of officers is based upon reasonable differenciation having nexus to the object sought to be achieved and hence, it is contended by the management that they are perfectly justified, that it is a matter of discretion and policy and that therefore, the same cannot be challenged in these proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mishra, J allowed the said writ petition holding that the officers, who are in the Junior management cadre should not be given additional weightage for their special qualifications, as it would deprive the respondent from getting promotion in the same manner with those officers who possess similar qualifications. Therefore, the learned Judge nullified the promotion policy and directed the management to consider the respondent’s candidature for fictional promotion at every stage, when others would have been considered for promotion to a higher grade. The learned single Judge in paragraphs 5 to 7 has observed as follows: “5. Law is thus candid and clear that those who are in integrated cadre and are subjected to some set of regulations must be treated as equals. The learned single Judge in paragraphs 5 to 7 has observed as follows: “5. Law is thus candid and clear that those who are in integrated cadre and are subjected to some set of regulations must be treated as equals. The moment there is any attempt to deny the benefit of a position in the rank held by a certain person, Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution are attracted. In Damodaran v. Paul, 1991 Writ L.R. 436, a Bench of this Court to which I was a member, has considered a case in which the Sub Inspectors of Police belonging to two separate cadre were pooled for promotion in the general cadre as in the instant case and a question arose whether there is any discrimination or arbitrariness involved in it. This Court has held” it is well settled that starting from a common point in service, employees may take two different routes until they again meet at a further point and from there proceed together and once they are pooled together and are ranked in the order of seniority in accordance with the rules that are in accordance with Arts.14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 6. It is not clear from the guidelines in the instant case, which say’s subject to the availability of vacancies all promotions whether from one scale to another or one grade to another shall be on the basis of merit and weightage if any for seniority, educational/professional qualifications, etc. as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time, that in a particular year, officers possessing particular qualification are given weightage or in any particular year, just for convenience the bank would introduce different qualifications and different assessments and accordingly, apply the rule of selection so that some who possess a qualification which otherwise is not a condition of eligibility, benefit themselves at the cost of others, who are senior to them. There is no attempt on behalf of the respondent to bring on the record of the instant proceeding why a Chartered Accountants or a law graduate is preferred over an Accountant with a longer period of experience or why when both are equals a person who with a lower qualification stands higher in the seniority list should be denied the right of being considered for promotion first irrespective opinion, which falls closer to the case, where to grant an accelerated promotion something is found in somebody which otherwise is not necessary for the service to which he belongs and he is picked up and promoted over the head of his seniors. In the instant case. I have no manner of doubt that the bank has acted arbitrarily and violated Arts.14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Many of the juniors of the petitioner who were promoted over his head have marched further ahead and I am informed at the Bar that the petitioner has already been promoted and he is holding a bank superior to the rank in which he was allegedly superseded. It is not, however, a fit case in my opinion in which because of such supersession after an inordinate delay of about a decade this court should direct the respondent to demote anyone who has already been promoted or to do any thing which shall reverse the progress of any of the employees in their service career, and which will work against the interests of the bank as well as the interests of the employees. A safe course in my opinion is the course of issuing a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, as if he stood above his next junior in Grade I of the bank officers and from there he has to proceed along with his juniors to the higher ranks in the services of the bank and thus consider the case of the petitioner for a fictional promotion, if any, when he was first superseded and decide in the same way at each stage of promotion to place him above his next junior in the cadre to which he should have been promoted had he not been superseded. This, however, will hot mean that the respondent cannot find the petitioner ineligible for a certain promotion or otherwise not suitable for the post depending upon and only on the principles which do not discriminate or are arbitrary and violate Arts.14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 7. Let a direction issue accordingly. There shall be no ordeF as to costs.." As against the order of the learned single judge the appellant/bank had preferred the present writ appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order. 6. We have heard the arguments of Mr.P.Ibrahim Kalifulla learned counsel for the appellant/Bank and Mr.Srivatsamani learned counsel for the contesting respondent. With great respect we disagree with the views expressed by the learned single judge, which in our opinion are quit contrary to law. The learned single judge has failed to not that to fixing the eligibility criteria for promotion to the officers of the Bank, awarding of additional marks to the officers, who are recruited as Law Officers, Chartered Accountants and Technical Field Officers based on the professional qualifications and their post qualifications etc. would not amount to a violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of officers was fixed by the bank only in consultation with the Officers Association of which the respondent was a member and he has also been subjected himself for the promotion process duly accepting the promotion policy and as such the eligibility criteria for promotion cannot be attacked on the ground of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellant - Bank in paragraphs 7 and 9 of their counter-affidavit have clearly stated that promotions were effected pursuant to and strictly in accordance with the promotion policy laid down by the Bank, after consultation and agreement with the recognized association representing majority of the officer employees of which the respondent was also an office bearer. The respondent did not demand or protest against the policy, but subjected himself to the process pursuant to the promotion policy and did not come out successful thereon. The respondent did not demand or protest against the policy, but subjected himself to the process pursuant to the promotion policy and did not come out successful thereon. Likewise, while answering to the averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of his writ petition, the appellant Bank has clearly explained that additional ten marks were awarded to the specialist officers i.e., Law Officers, Chartered Accountants, Technical Field Officers, who are having professional qualifications and they had entered into the service of the Bank only because of their professional knowledge and post qualification experience. Therefore, we are of the view they cannot be treated on par with other officers, who entered into the services of the Bank after possession of a Bachelor’s Degree at an early age of 21 years whereas the services of the bank only at the age of 28 years after completion of a Bachelor’s degree and subsequent possession of professional degree followed by relevant post qualification experience for a minimum period of three to four years. In our view, the learned single judge has failed to consider the above facts Further, for filling up the posts of officers scale II in the Legal Department or Accountants Department and other Departments where specialised knowledge is required, the officers in scale I recruited as specialist officers would be more eminently suitable than other officers who do not possess any specialised knowledge and experience. Therefore we are of the view that the allotment of additional marks to the specialised officers cannot be said to be one without a rational criteria. In matters of recruitment like this, the appellant bank has got to consider the time taken by the specialist officers in acquiring additional professional qualifications and gaining experience in the respective field to make them eligible to get the appointment as Specialist Officers and they are entitled to have weightage for such accomplishment and it will be discriminatory to put them on the same pedestal as officers without these qualifications with experience. Therefore, we are of the view that the awarding of marks to officers of the bank of a particular cadre for their specialised experience, professional qualification and their recruitment as specialist officers would not per se amount to discrimination under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are of the view that the awarding of marks to officers of the bank of a particular cadre for their specialised experience, professional qualification and their recruitment as specialist officers would not per se amount to discrimination under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The awarding of such marks to the specialist officers is also in keeping with the guidelines prescribed by the Government of India in terms of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and Art.17 of the Regulations framed by the Government entitles the Board of Directors of the Bank to fix the eligibility criteria and such fixation of eligibility criteria forming part of the terms and conditions applicable to the officers of the Bank cannot be challenged in the manner it is challenged by the respondent. The learned single judge has also not appreciated that the Bank would be a State or other authority under Art.12 of the Constitution only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights and that in the matter of promotion of officers, there is no fundamental right involved and that the respondent will be entitled to be considered for promotion only on the terms of the eligibility criteria announced by the bank in accordance with the regulations. It is seen from the order impugned in the writ appeal that the order impugned in the writ appeal that the learned Judge has erred in moulding the relief and directing the management to consider the respondent’s candidature for fictional promotions at various stages without he being subjected to the process of such promotions. We are of the view that the learned judge ought not to have moulded the relief in the above manner. It is not in dispute that the policy framed by the Bank was circulated among the employees and the respondent, after knowing the policy in detail had chosen not to contest or to make any objection regarding the marks to be awarded to the specialist officers. On the other hand, he was subjected himself to the promotion process and only when he was unsuccessful, he has chosen to challenge the promotion policy. The learned judge ought to have appreciated the position that the respondent along with 134 eligible candidates pertaining to the batch of 4. On the other hand, he was subjected himself to the promotion process and only when he was unsuccessful, he has chosen to challenge the promotion policy. The learned judge ought to have appreciated the position that the respondent along with 134 eligible candidates pertaining to the batch of 4. 1977 undergone promotion process during the year 1984 and out of which 27 officer employees, who are not specialised officers and not got the additional marks have also got the promotion in view of their obtaining higher marks in their performance and the respondent has not come out successful because of his lower ranking in performance. Considering the entire material available on record. We are of the view that the respondent has no right for automatic promotion and that he has only a right to be considered for promotion, subject to the policy and while considering him for promotion along with other officers in scale I,it is not illegal to give weightage of additional marks to the specialist officers. The order of the learned single Judge is there-fore in our view liable to be set aside. 7. Some of the decisions cited by Mr.Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned counsel for the appellant can also be usefully noticed in the present context. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and others, (1974)1 S.C.R. 771 decided by five Honourable Judge of the Supreme Court, who have held that though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers be classified on the basis of Educational Qualifications. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion diploma holders does not violate Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The decision in S. V.Subba Rao v. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation, (1992)1 L.L.J. 441, relates to promotion to posts of Divisional Managers in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The writ petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 in that case were Assistant Mechanical Engineers/Assistant Traffic Managers in the Corporation. All of them are graduates in engineering or holding equivalent qualifications, post graduate or diploma holders, the petitioners have longer service in the corporation that the respondents 3 to 5. The writ petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 in that case were Assistant Mechanical Engineers/Assistant Traffic Managers in the Corporation. All of them are graduates in engineering or holding equivalent qualifications, post graduate or diploma holders, the petitioners have longer service in the corporation that the respondents 3 to 5. All of them were eligible for promotion to the category of Divisional Managers in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, except the fourth respondent who had not completed three years of service as Depot Manager. Clause (b) (i) of Regulation 4 provided that promotion in a service or class to a selection category or to a selection grade shall be made on grounds of merit, seniority being considered only, where merit is approximately equal, petitioners who were seniors in the feeder category were ranked lower than the respondents, who were their juniors. The petitioners contended that awarding of more marks in the interview was reasonable and fair. The court held that the award of higher marks to the respondents on the basis of merit-ranking reports was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory and that the selection committee was enabled to grant additional weightage on the basis of higher educational attainments and that the said process did not involve any discrimination against the petitioners. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court further held that in cases where selections are made for appointment in public services of persons who are middle aged and above, that award of 25 per cent marks did not transgress the reasonable limits and that the award of 25 per cent marks to assess the personal traits, the individual dynamism and other related qualities could not therefore be considered as entirely unreasonable and arbitrary. In the decision reported in P.Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993)1 L.L.N. 667, decided by three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court the dispute was between the degree and diploma holders in the engineering service under the Madras Municipal Corporation in regard to their promotion to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers. In the decision reported in P.Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993)1 L.L.N. 667, decided by three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court the dispute was between the degree and diploma holders in the engineering service under the Madras Municipal Corporation in regard to their promotion to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers. The Supreme Court held that one cannot fail to take note of the fact that right from 1974 i.e., since the decision of the Constitution Bench in Triloki Nath Khosa and others, (1974)1 S.C.R. 771 , the Supreme Court has been holding uniformly that even where direct recruits and promotes are integrated into a common class they could for purpose of promotion to the highest cadre be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The Supreme Court did not agree that by prescribing a longer qualifying period of service for diploma holders, they have been equated with the graduates and that thereafter no further distinction is permissible. The distinction aforesaid was also in the matter of promotion and not for any other purpose. In the judgment in T.R.Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994)2 L.L.N. 1066, the Supreme Court held that higher educational qualification has relevance in so far as the holding of higher promotional post is concerned, in view of the nature of functions and duties attached to that post. That classification has, therefore, nexus with the object to be achieved. This apart, history also supports the differentiation sought to be made by the rule in question. The Supreme Court has therefore upheld the qualification as valid. 8. In the view of the above decisions the special marks awarded will not make any discrimination. It is fan too late to ascertain that the court exercising juris-1 diction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India can therefore review the entire process of selection, as if it is exercising appellate jurisdiction. The scope of judicial review in this area is very limited. Unless mala fides or oblique motives are specifically pleaded or can necessarily be inferred from the proof of facts, the court cannot review the process of selection in this area. 9. Mr.N.Srivatsamani, learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that at least the respondent’s seniority may be considered, through not the monetary benefits. Unless mala fides or oblique motives are specifically pleaded or can necessarily be inferred from the proof of facts, the court cannot review the process of selection in this area. 9. Mr.N.Srivatsamani, learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that at least the respondent’s seniority may be considered, through not the monetary benefits. We are unable to countenance such a plea, as we have already observed that the respondent would not be entitled to fictional promotions at various stages, when he being subjected to the process of promotion. 10. The writ appeal therefore succeeds. However, there will be no orders as to costs. In view of the final disposal of the writ appeal, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.