Judgment A. B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) ON 7-9-2004, we passed operative order dismissing the petition. Now we record our reasons. ( 2 ) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs : (A) The Honble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or, any other writ direction or order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the record and proceedings in the matter of denying the promotion to the petitioner including the record of service of the petitioner from the year 1984 and, particularly of the years 1985 onwards, when he was not given promotion. (B) This Honble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or, any other writ direction or, order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the letter/order dated 31st December 1991 filed at Exh. G issued by the respondent. (C) This Honble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ direction, or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to give the petitioner a deemed date of promotion in the year 1985 and further to promote him on further promotional post with all future promotional benefits attached to the post, till the decision of the writ petition. (D) This Honble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ direction or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the petitioner all the arrears including the benefits attached to the promotional posts with interest till realisation with all emoluments and benefits. "this petition was lodged in this Court on 19 - 4 -1992 and this Court on 10-3-1993 issued Rule nisi. Immediately after Rule nisi was granted the respondent though served have not filed the reply. Accordingly, the reply came to be filed on 14-7-2003. The petitioner further filed rejoinder on 16-8-2004. Similarly, during the course of hearing the respondent bank has produced certain circulars for the perusal of this Court, to consider the submissions advanced by the respective parties, Shri Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has no objection in reading those circulars in this petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner came to be appointed in the respondent bank as typistclerk on 27-1-1967. At the time of appointment the petitioner had B. Sc. degree. ( 3 ) THE petitioner came to be appointed in the respondent bank as typistclerk on 27-1-1967. At the time of appointment the petitioner had B. Sc. degree. Thereafter, the petitioner completed his LL. B. examination and also banking examination i. e. CAIIB (I) in the year 1976. Thereafter, he was promoted as junior Grade II on 1-8-1977. After the petitioner was promoted to that post, the post was redesignated as Officer JMGS. I on 1st October, 1979. In the year 1979 on the basis of Pillai Commission, the pay-scale of the officers and the staff of the bank was revised and enhanced. At that time, the pay-scale of the petitioner was Rs. 500-1030 and has enhanced to Rs. 700-1800/- Till this stage, there is no dispute and nothing will turn on these aspects. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY to the petitioner for further promotion to the higher post there are two channels (i) post of seniority which is called seniority channel and (ii) merit channel. Accordingly by circular being circular No. PER/71 dated september 3, 1986 a policy for promotion from Officer in Grade I to MM Grade ii for the year 1985 was framed and issued by the Bank. The said circular is made part of the paper book of this petition and is at page 16. The said circular also indicate that the circular so issued is ad hoc promotion policy for considering the promotions from JM Grade Scale-I to MM Grade II. As per the said circular 70% of the vacancies are to be filled in on merit channel and 30% from seniority channel. The circular makes provision for eligibility. It is the case of the petitioner that he was eligible for promotional post, he was called for examination test in the year 1984 but he was not successful. Next year i. e. in 1985 he appeared for the said examination and he was successful in passing said examination. As the petitioner has passed the said examination it is submitted that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade scale II which is next promotional post. The petitioner contended that had he was promoted in the year 1985 in due course of time in the year 1989, he would have been promoted to the post of MM Grade III and onwards. The petitioner contended that had he was promoted in the year 1985 in due course of time in the year 1989, he would have been promoted to the post of MM Grade III and onwards. It is contended by the petitioner that in the year 1985 he was called for interview and was one of the candidates out of 14 candidates from Marathwada area. However, the petitioner was not selected but his juniors were promoted. Petitioner contended that he was eligible for promotion from both channels i. e. merit and seniority as the petitioner was working as higher grade/officiating since 1983. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that he was not considered for promotion at the relevant time. In the year 1987 a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by initiating departmental proceedings being DCP/205 dated 6-2-1987. On the basis of the said charge-sheet issued, disciplinary authority completed the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. It is not disputed before us that in the said enquiry some charges were proved and as a result of the enquiry a punishment was inflicted on him. The penalty so awarded was "reduction by three stages in the time scale". Accordingly, on October 28, 1989 the order of penalty was passed. It is to be noted at this stage as the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, the bank adopted sealed cover procedure and the petitioner was called for interview for promotion but the result was kept in sealed cover. After the penalty was imposed, the petitioner filed departmental appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority by the order dated 29-3-1990 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel has stated before us that the petitioner has not challenged the order of dismissal of appeal and the order of imposing penalty and dismissing of appeal has been accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that as the disciplinary enquiry was terminated finally in the year 1990 the sealed packet should have been opened and the result of the promotional Committee should have been intimated to the petitioner but for best known reasons to the respondent bank, the result of the promotional Committee was not intimated. It is contended by the petitioner that the punishment imposed was implemented and the pay-scale was reduced at one stroke. It is contended by the petitioner that the punishment imposed was implemented and the pay-scale was reduced at one stroke. It was contended by the petitioner that the order of imposing penalty was reduction of three stages in time scale but at one stroke the order was executed and that too with retrospective effect. It is contended by the petitioner that by not awarding promotion the petitioner was punished and also by reduction of the salary as per the order in the disciplinary proceedings was also reduced. Therefore, it was submitted that it was case of double punishment. Petitioner contended that the increment was due on 1-8-1990 and it was released and his basic pay was raised to Rs. 4020/- but the result of promotional Committee for the year 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 were still continued to hold in sealed cover. It is the case of the petitioner that by adopting this practice the bank has victimised the petitioner and even he was not called for interview in the year 1990. It is contended that for not calling for interview in the year 1990 indirectly, the petitioner is being punished as the petitioner was not awarded promotion, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the said action as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the guarantee given to the petitioner by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that though, there were vacancies in the year 1986 and the vacancies were so notified as 60 but only 46 persons were considered for promotion. The petitioner has been denied equal opportunity and has been denied the right to claim promotion by the bank by wrong applying of circulars issued by the Bank. The petitioner has also branded the action of the respondent as mala fide, afterthought and a cooked up story only to deprive the petitioner further promotion. ( 6 ) THE Bank has filed reply affidavit denying all adverse contentions raised by the petitioner. It is contended that after the sufferance period of punishment, the petitioner came to be promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale II on 20- 11-1992. The petitioner was promoted in routine course. The promotion so granted to the petitioner was effective from 1-12-1992. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade II on 29-11-1992 and the promotional benefit to the petitioner were effective from 1-12-1992. The petitioner was promoted in routine course. The promotion so granted to the petitioner was effective from 1-12-1992. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade II on 29-11-1992 and the promotional benefit to the petitioner were effective from 1-12-1992. On the basis of this fact, it was contended by the Bank that the petition hasbecome infructuous. It is contended that the petitioner passed promotional examination in 1985 but as the petitioner failed in performance appraisal and interview test as the examination which was held in 1985 was in respect of merit channel. The petitioner appeared for examination in 1995 in the merit channel for promotion to mm Grade Scale II but the petitioner could not go through the performance appraisal and interview and therefore, he was not promoted. It is stated that the petitioner has failed in performance appraisal and interview, therefore, even though, the petitioner has passed written test. It was of no use. It is stated that the interview committee prepared list of the candidates in the order of merit of the candidates who appeared for the interview. It is stated that the petitioner figured in that list at serial No. 151 and he secured 43. 33 marks. The Committee has selected the candidates upto serial No. 119 and the last candidate who was selected secured 49. 33 marks and as the petitioner has not stood in the merit, he was not selected. The bank denied that the bank has promoted the juniors in superseding the petitioner. It is contended that as the petitioner was not successful in the interview and performance appraisal, he was not selected. It is contended as the petitioner has failed in the interview test though the petitioner has passed written examination in the year 1985, the petitioner is not entitled to deem date of promotion as the petitioner was not selected by the Selection committee. It is contended that as per the Circular dated 3rd September 1986 appeal is provided to the higher authorities against non-promotion but the petitioner has not filed appeal before the competent appellate authority and the petitioner has not filed appeal before the Executive Committee. It is contended that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary enquiry was in progress at the relevant time. It is contended that there were serious charges of corruption against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary enquiry was in progress at the relevant time. It is contended that there were serious charges of corruption against the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner has demanded amounts from the borrowers for sanction of loan. On the basis of the complaint of the borrowers, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated. It is stated that petitioner came to know that complaint was filed against him by the borrowers, immediately he sanctioned loan to the borrowers. The enquiry report is produced on record by the petitioner and from that it was pointed out by the bank that the charges of corruption were true but actual acceptance of the amount was not proved. The respondent-bank therefore, submitted that the charges were serious, minor punishment was awarded because the actual receipt of the amount by the complainant was not established. It is contended that grievance made by the petitioner that he should have considered for promotion in the year 1985-86 i. e. the years prior to serving of charge-sheet on the petitioner. It was contended that in the year 1985 the petitioner appeared for interview test and succeeded in passing written examination but failed in oral interview. There was no promotional test held in the year 1986-87, therefore, there was no occasion for considering the case of the petitioner in the year 1986-87. It is stated that in the year 1988 the promotional test for JM Grade Scale I to MM Grade Scale II were held for the period 1986, 1987 and 1988. The petitioner was not called for 1988 promotional test but was called in the year 1989 and sealed cover procedure was adopted. At the end of departmental proceedings which resulted in imposing penalty in three stages in time scale, the petitioner was eligible for promotion after expiry of the penalty period which was in force till 31-7-1992 and after that period the petitioners case was considered and accordingly, he was promoted in november 1992. It is contended that after the penalty period is over, the petitioner earned three increments which was reduced on 31-7-1990, 31-7-1991 and 31-7-1992. According to the Bank the sufferance period was upto 31-7-1992 and on 8-8-1992 he became eligible for promotion on restoration of the basic pay. It is contended that after the penalty period is over, the petitioner earned three increments which was reduced on 31-7-1990, 31-7-1991 and 31-7-1992. According to the Bank the sufferance period was upto 31-7-1992 and on 8-8-1992 he became eligible for promotion on restoration of the basic pay. It is therefore, contended that petitioners case was considered when the sufferance period has come to an end and he was awarded promotion. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion upto 1992 because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and sufferance period as per the penalty. It is contended that the action taken by the Bank was just and proper and it is exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the variouscirculars. It is contended that as per the procedure followed by the Bank the persons who fails in promotional test were not to be informed but the persons who were selected were to be duly informed by the circular. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent has produced before us various circulars, whereby the procedure to intimate the names of selected candidates was adopted and followed. It is therefore, contended that the bank has strictly followed the circulars and regulations and the petitioner was not eligible for promotion because of departmental enquiry. The petitioner appeared for examination but in interview he was not selected, therefore the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion when the occasion arose. It is contended that the petitioner has no right to be promoted but he has only right to be considered for promotion. It is submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion in 1985 but he was not selected. In the year 1986-87 there was no promotion Committee and at that time the departmental enquiry was in progress, the bank adopted sealed cover procedure. It is therefore, submitted that no case is made out by the petitioner to seek the relief from this Court. ( 7 ) WE heard Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri. S. R. Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent Bank. Shri deshmukh, learned advocate submitted before us that double punishment was awarded to the petitioner as the petitioner was not called for interview when the promotion Committee was constituted. He submitted that at the same time there was reduction of pay. Shri deshmukh, learned advocate submitted before us that double punishment was awarded to the petitioner as the petitioner was not called for interview when the promotion Committee was constituted. He submitted that at the same time there was reduction of pay. The reduction was made at one stroke in contravention of the order of punishment. Shri Deshmukh, in order to substantiate this aspect, has drawn our attention to the letter dated 21-2-1991 and submitted that if letter issued by the Regional Manager is indicative of the fact that the penalty was imposed retrospectively. To understand this contention we reproduce the letter dated 21-1-1991. "shri D. R. Kulkarni, officer JMGS-I, c/o State Bank of Hyderabad, parbhani Main. Dear Sir, reg : Salary Revision Stagnation increment/p. Q. A. Please refer to Head Office Cir. No. PER/90-91/5 dated the 20th april, 1990 and your application dated for sanction of stagnation increments/p. Q. A. 2. Consequent upon revision in scales, your pay will be revised as under: