JUDGMENT The writ petitioner are officers of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the respondent bank). The promotional process of the said respondent bank has been impugned herein. By a notification dated June 22, 1998 the respondent Bank decided to fill up 14 vacancies by giving promotion from Scale - I to Scale - II. Clause 3 of the said notice is quoted below:– “Basis of selection : Selection will be made on “SENIORITY-CUM-MERIT” basis Candidates will be numerically evaluated on 100 points basis as under:– i) Seniority : 50 ii) Performance appraisal : 30 iii) Interview : 20”. 2. The identical issue was decided by me in the case of Sagar Gramin Bank [W.P. No. 13951(W) of 1998 & Ors.] by my judgment and order dated June 14, 2002. Since the identical issue had been decided by me this matter would be covered by the said judgment. Hence, I granted liberty to both parties to have inspection of my said judgment. 3. Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Counsel for the respondent bank, submitted that the said judgment had not considered the Apex Court judgments reported in 1998 Vol. VII, SCALE; Page 447 (Sher Singh & Ors. v. Surinder Khanna & Ors.). Mr. Ghosh wanted to make detailed submission on the issue afresh. I therefore granted him opportunity. The following decisions were cited by Mr. Ghosh:– (i) 1998(3), SCALE, Page 447, (Sher Singh & Ors. v. Surinder Khanna & Ors.), (ii) 1998 Vol. VI, Supreme Court Cases, Page 720, (B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu & Ors.), (iii) 1998 Vol. I, Calcutta law Times, Page 391, (Rajesh Nath & Ors. v. Kolaghat Thermal Power Station & Ors.), (iv) AIR 1974 Supreme Court, Page 460, (State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri & Ors.), (v) AIR 1996 Supreme Court, Page 2733, (Sr. Jagathigowda & Ors. v. Chairman Cauvery Gramin Bank & Ors.). 4. Relying on the aforesaid judgments Mr. Ghosh submitted that there was no illegality or irregularity perpetrated in the promotional process. Before deciding the said issue let me quote the relevant portion of my judgment in Sagar Gramin Bank (supra). Jagathigowda & Ors. v. Chairman Cauvery Gramin Bank & Ors.). 4. Relying on the aforesaid judgments Mr. Ghosh submitted that there was no illegality or irregularity perpetrated in the promotional process. Before deciding the said issue let me quote the relevant portion of my judgment in Sagar Gramin Bank (supra). “Senior-cum-merit” as defined by the Apex Court, means that a particular mark is fixed which makes concerned candidate eligible for promotion and a list is accordingly prepared for the successful candidates who could cross such marking and then promotion is given on the basis of seniority irrespective of the marks obtained by the concerned candidates. Whereas “merit-cum-seniority” means that a particular group of employees on the basis of seniority are taken within the zone of consideration and as soon as they come within the zone of consideration the promotion is given in accordance with the merit i.e. according to the marks obtained by those persons. The proceeding paragraph is my understanding of the phrase “Seniority-cum-Merit” in the light of the various decisions of the Apex Court. " “5. Following the Apex Court decision, in the case of Sagar Gramin Bank (supra) I quashed the identical clause contained in the circular for promotion. Hence, there is no reason why I should deviate from my own stand. However, since Mr. Ghosh had cited few decisions of the Apex Court I intend to deal with the same– 1998(3), SCALE, Page 447, (Sher Singh & Ors. v. Surinder Khanna & Ors.) : In this judgment the Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court which quashed the promotional process as it found that the bank had adopted the criteria of merit-cum-seniority instead of seniority-cum-merit as per the relevant rules. This judgment, in fact supports the view taken by me in the case of Sagar Gramin Bank (supra). 1998 Vol, Supreme Court Cases, Page 720 (B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu & Ors.): It appears on perusal of the judgment that the identical issue was gone into by the Apex Court in respect of the other gramin banks and it was held that the procedure was contrary to the principles of ‘seniority-cum-merit”. This judgment also supports the view expressed by me in the case of Sagar Gramin Bank (supra). 6. Since this three bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. This judgment also supports the view expressed by me in the case of Sagar Gramin Bank (supra). 6. Since this three bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. had laid down the proposition of law in this field I do not wish to deal with the earlier cases cited by Mr. Ghosh. 7. Following the three bench decision in the case of B.V. Sivaiah I do not find any reason to change my view which I had expressed in the case of Sagar Gramin Bank (supra). 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The entire promotional process, resulting from the circular dated June 22, 1998 is quashed and set aside. The private respondents are reverted back to their original post. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would however not ask for refund of financial benefits availed by the private respondents during this period. 9. Respondent authority would immediately initiate a selection process strictly in accordance with the guideline suggested by the Apex Court and reiterated by me hereinbefore for giving promotion in the post of MMG-II. Such promotional process must be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 10. This will, however, not preclude the bank to retain the promotes being the private respondents in their respective promoted posts if they so want. In such event the writ petitioners must be given appropriate pay protection respectively from the date of promotion of the private respondents and would be accommodated in MMG Scale - II as and when vacancy would arise with retrospective effect from 1998 when the private respondents were promoted. Writ is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.