JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court with the prayer that supersession of the petitioner's candidature for promotion to the Middle Management Grade II (MMGS II) in the year 1985 and 1988 and orders dated October 13, 1986 and Sept. 26, 1988 resulting in rejection of his appeals be quashed and respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the MMGS II against the vacancies of 1985 and in any case against the vacancies of 1988. The respondents be also directed to identify the vacant posts of MMGS II as eleven to be filled from the officers in the Personnel Department of the Bank (who were eligible in the year 1987) in terms of the policy circular of the Bank dated May 22, 1982. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that his service record is throughout satisfactory but he got serious apprehension that the ratings in his performance appraisal might have been damaged by the then Regional Manager Mr. J.A. Pandiya who was reviewing authority of the petitioner during the year 1934. His rating was done `C' in 1984 and although for 1985 the reporting officer had rated him `B' the Assistant General Manager acted as final reviewing authority tonned it down as `C' without any reason whatever and without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had not worked under him even for a day. On account of performance appraisal report of the petitioner he was denied promotion and was superseded. 3. The respondents in their written statement averred that examinations for promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II were held in the year 1985. The petitioner also appeared in the said examinations. Since he could not qualify, his name was not included in the list of selected candidates. Thereafter an appeal was filed by him, which was also rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that there was no substance in the appeal. Whole record of the petitioner was examined by the appellate authority and thereafter this decision was taken. Promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II, factors of seniority, qualifications, written test, performance and potentials were given weight age. Since the petitioner could not obtain the required marks in 1985 and 1987 he was not promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale II. Promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II, factors of seniority, qualifications, written test, performance and potentials were given weight age. Since the petitioner could not obtain the required marks in 1985 and 1987 he was not promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale II. As per the record of the Bank as on 1.1.1987, the total number of Personnel Officers in Middle Management Grade Scale it were and as per the categorisation of posts of various officers, the number of posts of the Personnel Officers for the year 1987 were 61. The respondents therefore declared only four vacancies. The principles laid down in promotion policy and the provisions of circular dated May 22, 1982 were followed in letter and spirit by the Bank. The reviewing authority in year 1984 awarded ratings to the petitioner without any bias after examining the performance on the basis of the guide lines/standards prescribed and it is not necessary for an officer to directly work under the final reviewing authority. The reviewing authority get over all information about the performance and potentials of all officers under his control and authority, on the basis of which ratings are given. The petitioner has not made Mr. J.A. Pandiya as party in the writ petition. The system of rating is based on close system as such the same cannot be disclosed before a candidate. 4. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply and pleaded that his so case was not considered fairly. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 6. Undisputably the petitioner was made aware of the procedure for promotion before he sat for the written test. Therefore, he cannot turn around and contend later when he found he was not selected by challenging the procedure.In Union of India and another v. N. Chandrasekharan and others, (1988) 3 SCC 694 their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus : It is not in dispute that all candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and that the authority cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at the interview or in the assessment confidential report." In Government of Orissa v. Har Prasad Das and others, AIR 1998 SC 375 was the case wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus : "Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary it is not open to the Tribunal to interfere with such decision of the Government and direct it to make appointments." In Union of India and others v. Kishorilal Bablani (1999) 1 SCC 729 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus : "Delay defeats equity, is a well known principle of jurisprudence Delay of and 20 years cannot be overlooked when an applicant before the court seeks equity. During all these years, the respondent had no legal right to any particular post. After more than 20 years, the process of selection and notification of vacancies cannot be and ought not be reopened in the interest of proper functioning and morale of the concerned services. It would also jeopardise existing positions of a large number of members of that service." 7. it is not possible to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the denial of promotion to the petitioner is arbitrary. The case of the petitioner was fairly considered. Categorisation of only four vacancies by the Bank cannot be said to be without justification. The petitioner who appeared in the examinations twice and was declared unsuccessful therefore he cannot turn around and later contend when he found he was not selected that the categorisation of the vacancies by the Bank is defective and unjustified. Ratings in the Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner by Mr. J.A. Pandiya as final reviewing authority cannot be said as arbitrary. Moreover no malafide has been pleaded by the petitioner against Mr. J.A. Pandiya and he has not been impleaded as party in the writ petition. 8. I do not see any illegality in the act of the respondent Bank in denying promotion to the petitioner to Middle Management Grade Scale II. Moreover no malafide has been pleaded by the petitioner against Mr. J.A. Pandiya and he has not been impleaded as party in the writ petition. 8. I do not see any illegality in the act of the respondent Bank in denying promotion to the petitioner to Middle Management Grade Scale II. The orders dated October 13, 1986 and September 26, 1988 were rightly passed by the appellate authority. 9. In view of what I have discussed here-in-above, the respondents cannot be directed to identify vacant posts of Middle Management Grade so Scale II. 10. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******