JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The peti-tioners initially challenged the Office Order No. IOM:GEN:SPC:PK:2000-2001/018 dated 10th June, 2000, whereby and whereunder, the respondents circulated the promotion policy for promotion of Officers of Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum (for short-Gramin Bank) from Junior Management Grade-I (JMG-I) to Middle Management Grade-II (MMG-I1). Prayer was also made to set aside the order dated 7th August, 2000, as contained in Memo No. IOM:GEN:2000-01/029, whereby and whereunder, the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 have been promoted to the higher post of MMG-II. 2. The main plea was taken that above mentioned promotion policy has been formulated contrary to the Promotion Rules and Guidelines framed by NABARD and is also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India and this Court. 3. The respondent Gramin Bank in their affidavit took plea that the norms for promotion of Officers from JMG-I to MMG-II dated 10th June, 2000 (Annexure-1) was issued in ignorance of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. v. D.P. Singh @ Dina Nath Prasad Singh and Ors., reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 251 , which is based on various decisions of the Supreme Court. However, since the judgment of the Courts came to the notice of the respondent Gramin Bank, another Circular dated 14th July, 2000 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) was issued informing all the candidates that the Board shall be at liberty to change the norms of promotion. Accordingly, the respondents changed the norms of promotion in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench, as referred to above, vide Boards meeting dated 7th August, 2000. According to the revised norms, 51 marks were allotted for seniority, 19 marks for Annual Performance Report; and 30 marks for Interview. As per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, the Board in its revised norms fixed 25 marks as qualifying marks for Annual Performance Report and Interview and Officers who secured minimum qualifying marks were selected for promotion keeping their order of seniority. 4. The counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the selection having made as per the revised norms, the writ petition against the earlier promotion policy dated 10th June, 2000 become infructuous. 5. 4. The counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the selection having made as per the revised norms, the writ petition against the earlier promotion policy dated 10th June, 2000 become infructuous. 5. The counsel for the petitioners while accepted that the writ petition against the earlier promotion policy dated 10th June, 2000 become infructuous in view of revised norms dated 7th August, 2000, submitted that there was no occasion to select the candidates, interview having been held on 17th and 18th July, 2001 i.e., prior to issuance of revised guidelines dated 7th August, 2000 (Annexure-D). 6. The Chairman of the Gramin Bank was directed to remain present in the Court to explain how the selection took place on the basis of the changed guidelines dated 7th August, 2000, if the Interview held earlier on 17th and 18th July, 2001. In pursuance of Courts order, Mr. Satish Goal, Chairman of the Singhbhum Kshetriay Gramin Bank, Chaibasa. West Singhbhum presented himself on 5th May, 2003 and also produced all relevant documents including APRs. for the years 1995-96; 1996-97; 1997- 98 and the APR Register wherein the marking of the Officers have been reflected. The original records relating to grant of marks in Interview by individual Member of the Selection Board and other records were also produced. He explained as to why no fresh Interview was taken after issuance of changed guidelines dated 7th August, 2000 (Annexure-D) and how the merit list was prepared for promotion to the higher post. It was pointed out that 30 marks were allotted for Interview as per earlier promotion policy dated 10th June, 2000 (Annexure-A). The Selection Board, accordingly, granted marks of Interview out of total 30 marks. After the change of guidelines by decision dated 7th August, 2000 (Annexure-D), though marks for seniority and APRs were changed, 30 maximum marks having again allotted for Interview vide guidelines dated 7th August, 2000, there was no occasion to take a fresh Interview. The marks already obtained by a candidate in the Interview held on 17th and 18th July, 2000 were taken into consideration for preparation of merit list. 7. So far as marks of APRs and seniority are concerned, there was a change taken place by a subsequent promotion policy dated 7th August, 2000. 19 marks were the full marks allotted towards APR and 51 total marks were allotted towards seniority fide revised guidelines. 7. So far as marks of APRs and seniority are concerned, there was a change taken place by a subsequent promotion policy dated 7th August, 2000. 19 marks were the full marks allotted towards APR and 51 total marks were allotted towards seniority fide revised guidelines. They were calculated on the basis of the APRs of the last three years on record and the length of service for that there was no occasion to hold any Interview, being based on record. 8. This Court has also perused the original records including the marks granted during Interview by the Selection Board, assessment of minimum merit made by the respondents towards seniority (full marks 51) and APR (full marks 19). For example, the cases of William Lawrance, an unsuccessful candidate and P.K. Sinha, a successful candidate were gone through. In presence of the parties, the Chairman of the Gramin Bank explained how the markings have been given for length of service per year and total services rendered by the candidates. The markings given in the APRs of the last three years were also perused by the Court. There appears to be no illegality committed by the respondents in calculating the marks and preparation of the merit list which is the basis to grant promotion to respondents Nos. 3 to 12. 9. In the aforesaid background, there being no illegality committed by the respondents to promote them to the higher post of MMG-II, it requires no interference. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order, as to costs.