L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner joined as clerk in the Syndicate Bank-respondents in the year 1976. According to Syndicate Bank officers Services Regulations, 1979 (for short the Regulations ) framed by the respondents, 75% of the vacancies in the junior Management Grade Scale I cadre are to be filled by promotion of Clerks. This promotion is to be on the basis of performance at the written test and viva voce held for the purpose. The Regulations have also provided for awarding of fixed weightage marks for various items, such as, education qualifications, length of service, departmental tests, etc. ( 2 ) IN the year 1980, the petitioner appeared in the examination held for the purpose of selecting the candidates for promotion to Officers cadre. On the basis of his performance and assessment by the selection Committee, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager through orders dated 8-12-1980 and was posted at gaziabad branch in Uttar Pradesh. When he joined at Gaziabad and was working at that place, he was asked to report back to his previous place of work viz. , Vidupanakal branch in Anantapur. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was issued orders on 29-12-1980 wherein it was stated that during the course of selection to the officers cadre, the petitioner was awarded 34 marks for the qualifications, whereas he was eligible to be awarded 24 marks only and on the basis of the actual marks, he will not be entitled to be promoted. In that view of the matter, he was directed to discharge his duties as Clerk. In effect, this was an order of reversion. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed WP. No. 6721/80 challenging the orders of reversion contending inter alia that the same was violative of principles of natural justice. Inasmuch it was not in dispute that the respondents did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner before passing the order dated 29-12-1980, the writ petition was allowed "through order dated 4-3-1982 and the order impugned therein was set aside. However, it was left open to the respondents to take appropriate steps, if they are so advised. The respondents carried the matter in appeal by filing WA. No. 369/ 1982. The writ appeal was dismissed on 19-4-1982. ( 5 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ appeal, the respondents issued a detailed show-cause notice dated 30-6-1982. However, it was left open to the respondents to take appropriate steps, if they are so advised. The respondents carried the matter in appeal by filing WA. No. 369/ 1982. The writ appeal was dismissed on 19-4-1982. ( 5 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ appeal, the respondents issued a detailed show-cause notice dated 30-6-1982. In this show-cause notice, the respondents have referred to the Rule position as well as the qualifications held by the petitioner and have also stated as to how the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why he shall not be placed in the Clerical cadre. Exchange of letters took place between the petitioner and the respondents. Ultimately the petitioner submitted his explanation contradicting the version of the respondents. In that view of the matter, the respondents appointed an Enquiry officer, who, in turn, conducted the enquiry on several dates duly giving opportunity to. the petitioner. He submitted his report dated 11-12-1989, holding that the proposed action of the respondents is justified. In view of the findings of the Enquiry officer, the respondents passed orders dated 22-1-1990, withdrawing the promotion that was accorded to the petitioner in the year 1980. It was ordered that since the petitioner has performed the duties of the Officer till the date of the said order, the difference of wages shall not be recovered. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit, the respondents submit that the policy for promotion from Clerical cadre to the officers cadre was formulated in the year 1972, providing for weightage of marks to educational qualifications, length of service, departmental tests, etc. According to them, on a wrong interpretation of the policy, the petitioner and other candidates were awarded 10 marks for Post Graduation and another 10 marks for Double Graduation, though such candidates were entitled for 10 marks alone. When this anomaly was noticed in the year 1980, the cases of all the 9 candidates were reviewed. It was found that out of the 9 candidates, 7 candidates were eligible to be promoted even without the additional 10 marks, whereas the petitioner and the other candidate by name Mohandas were not eligible to be promoted, if the 10 marks wrongly awarded to them were deducted. In that view of the matter, the promotions wrongly given to these two candidates were withdrawn. While Mr. In that view of the matter, the promotions wrongly given to these two candidates were withdrawn. While Mr. Mohandas accepted the orders and worked in the lower post, the petitioner had challenged the proceedings at several stages. The respondents also contended that the petitioner cannot claim advantage on the basis of improper awarding of marks. ( 7 ) SRI P. M. Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents have selected the petitioner to the Officers cadre on the bas is of their understandings of the Regulations. When the respondents have not even alleged that the petitioner had misrepresented any facts and secured any benefit, it is not open to them to deny the promotion. It is his further case that even according to the respondents, the relevant provision in the policy was ambiguous and to clear that ambiguity clarifications were issued and such clarifications can operate only prospectively. ( 8 ) SRI E. Madan Mohan Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits that awarding of 10 marks for double Graduation to the petitioner, when he was already awarded marks for Post graduation, was on account of a mistake and that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the said mistake. It is also his contention that the relevant provision always carried the same meaning and what was clarified at a later point of time cannot have an effect of amending that provision. He, therefore, submits that the question of retrospective operation of the clarification does not arise. ( 9 ) THE respondents have formulated a policy for promoting Clerical staff to officers cadre. This policy contemplates holding of a written test and viva voce test. Apart from this, it contemplates awarding of weightage marks for various items, such as, length of service, departmental tests, educational qualifications, etc. , held by the candidates. The promotion was to be effected on the basis of the total marks secured by the Clerical staff in the written test, viva voce and the weightage marks awarded for service and qualifications. The fact that the petitioner appeared in the written test and viva voce and was awarded weightage marks is not in dispute. It was on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioner that he was promoted to the officers cadre. The fact that the petitioner appeared in the written test and viva voce and was awarded weightage marks is not in dispute. It was on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioner that he was promoted to the officers cadre. ( 10 ) THE only controversy, which gave rise to this litigation, is the interpretation or rather the understanding of the relevant provision relating to award of marks to qualifications. The break up of marks to be awarded for qualifications as contemplated under the policy is as under:-