(1) THIS appeal pertains to selections made by the appellant-Bank in the year 1988 for promotions from Officers Grade II to Officers Grade III. The Promotion Policy for various promotions including from Officers Grade II to Officers Grade III was set out in a Circular dated 8/10/1987 which was issued to all branches of the appellant-Bank. The Circular sets out the Promotion Policy as laid down by the Board of Directors which was deemed to be the policy applicable to all officers under Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank Officers Service Regulations. 1979. In the Circular, it was, inter alia, mentioned that there were 200 vacancies in the Grade III posts which were to be filled in by promotions from Grade II. The promotions were to be made on the basis of aggregate marks secured by the eligible officers under the following four heads : (1) Seniority - 40 marks (2) Qualifications - 10 marks (3) Performance appraisal - 30 marks (4) Interview - 20 marks (2) THE manner of giving marks, inter alia, for qualifications was also set out indicating the corresponding marks for each qualification. Initially under the said Promotion Policy, the eligibility for promotions was to be determined as on 31/12/1986. (3) WE are informed that the Bank was not able to get sufficient number of candidates for promotion from Grade II to Grade III who had completed the minimum length of service of five years. The Board thereafter by its Resolution dated 7/12/1987 resolved that for the purpose of filling up the vacancies, inter alia, for promotion from Grade II to Grade III, the minimum length of service for promotion may be relaxed by one year. The cut-OFF DATE for computing the eligibility for promotion was determined as on 31/10/1987. The marks for seniority, qualifications and performance were to be determined as on 31/12/1986. There were other modifications with which we are not concerned. The minimum length of service was further relaxed thereafter to secure an adequate number of candidates for consideration. (4) ACCORDINGLY, interviews were held for promotion from Grade II to Grade III. Under the modified policy, 1518 persons were eligible for promotion to Grade III and were considered. Marks were given as per the scheme set out in the promotion policy. The respondent was one of the candidates so considered. He was at S. No. 1047. The respondent secured 70.6 marks. Under the modified policy, 1518 persons were eligible for promotion to Grade III and were considered. Marks were given as per the scheme set out in the promotion policy. The respondent was one of the candidates so considered. He was at S. No. 1047. The respondent secured 70.6 marks. The cut-off marks for selection were, however, 71 marks. Therefore, the respondent was not selected. (5) THE respondent contended before the High Court that in July, 1987, he acquired an additional qualification which entitles him to two more marks. If this qualification had been taken into account, he would have secured the necessary marks for selection. The cut-OFF DATE for considering seniority, qualifications and performance, however, was 31/12/1986 as per the modified Promotions Policy. Hence, the additional qualification acquired by the respondent in July, 1987 has not been considered. In the impugned judgment, however, the High Court has granted to the respondent the benefit of the additional marks on the basis that when qualifications for promotion are required, the qualifications at the date of promotion should be considered and not the qualifications at any date prior to it. This reasoning of the High Court is fallacious. When apromotion Policy is framed setting out the cut-off date for considering qualifications, this is a decision taken for administrative reasons making it possible, inter alia, for the employing authority to examine the numerous application, process them and grade them. It may be that some other cut-off date was possible. But that does not mean that a cut-off date once fixed can be ignored or considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. In the present case, looking to all the circumstances in which the policy was relaxed and the reasons why modifications had to be made in the policy relaxing the minimum length of service, we do not see any infirmity in continuing to retain 31/12/1986 as the cut-off date for giving marks for qualifications, seniority and performance. (6) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed before the High Court is dismissed.