Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote him to the post of Officer in the MMG-II scale w.e.f. 1.4.1997 i.e. from the date on which his juniors were promoted. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 28.9.1999 as communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 6.1.2000 (Annexure-4) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his non-promotion has been rejected. Petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 6.5.1994 (Annexure-3) whereby the punishment of reprimand has been inflicted on him. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as the Branch Manager of the respondents Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, prepared a list of such officers who were eligible for interview for promotion in the scale of MMG-II. Petitioners name finds place in that. It is the assertion of the petitioner that by letter dated 6.5.1994 he was visited with the penalty of reprimand and on that ground, the Committee did not find him fit for promotion. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the aforesaid punishment of reprimand has been inflicted without any inquiry. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank in which it has been stated that for inflicting punishment of reprimand, no regular departmental inquiry is needed and further, after giving an opportunity, petitioner was inflicted with the penalty . of reprimand. In para-12 of the counter affidavit, it has been clearly stated that promotion of the petitioner was not denied due to penalty of reprimand but the Committee constituted to consider the cases of promotion, did not find the petitioner suitable while assessing the minimum merit for holding the higher position in the MMG Scale-ll. 4. Mr. Tiwary, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order of reprimand is bad as the said order was passed without holding a departmental inquiry. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tiwary. 5. It has not been denied by the petitioner that he had filed representation and on consideration of that, the order of reprimand has been passed. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tiwary. 5. It has not been denied by the petitioner that he had filed representation and on consideration of that, the order of reprimand has been passed. The punishment of reprimand is not of such nature that under the rules by which the petitioner is governed, a regular departmental inquiry is required to be held. 6. There is yet another impediment in the way of the petitioner in assailing the said order. The order of reprimand was passed as back as on 6.5.1994 and the petitioner has chosen to file this writ application on 25.4.2000. Therefore, this grievance of the petitioner besides having no merit, is also stale. 7. Mr. Tiwary, then submits that the petitioner ought not to have been denied the promotion only on the ground of punishment of reprimand. The very assumption of Mr. Tiwary that the petitioner has been denied promotion on account of having suffered a penalty of reprimand, is erroneous on fact. The respondents in the counter affidavit have clearly stated that the petitioner was not denied the promotion due to the penalty of reprimand but was not found suitable by the Committee while assessing the minimum merit for holding the higher position in MMG Scale-ll. Hence I reject the submission of Mr. Tiwary. 8. It is common ground that the persons found suitable by the Committee have been promoted but this writ application has been filed without impleading them. Hence no effective order can be passed in their absence. 9. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly. No cost.