The appeal is summarily disposed of. It is preferred against the interim order passed by an Honble Single Judge on the 6th September, 2005. 2. The writ petitioner who is a respondent before us filed a writ petition seeking promotion in the Bank. Although affidavits were complete, instead disposing of the writ petition merely the impugned interim order was passed. 3. The order is extremely wide. It stops all further promotions in the Bank to the post of Assistant Manager. We are informed that there are some 18 posts of Assistant Manager in the Bank. 4. The writ petitioner is only one individual. 5. Furthermore, the Bank has made positive assertions that on the basis of an annual allotment of marks for determining eligibility, the last 10 years aggregate brings the writ petitioner only to the figure 17, whereas 18 is the cut off number. 6. According to the Bank, the writ petitioner is simply ineligible for promotion. 7. This was also given in the decision of the Managing Director who considered the case of promotion of the writ petitioner pursuant to an order of the Court passed in an earlier writ. The date of the said earlier order is 28-2-2005. 8. In writ matters, it is extremely difficult to get a promotion through the intervention of the Court; promotions are different from dismissal. Unless a very strong case is made out that the Bank could not but have promoted the writ petitioner in any reasonable view of the matter, success in these matters in a writ petition is nearly impossible. 9. Our order and observations, however, worded, are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ which is yet to be disposed of. 10. However, we are quite clear in our minds that in the present circumstances, no interim order was deserved by the writ petitioner. It is all the more so because parties seem to be agreed that all posts of Assistant Manager are now filled by promotion and the interim order granted, if allowed to have effect, would have effect, if at all, only in the distant future, the particulars of which cannot be made clear by either of the parties before us now. The interim order should not subsist. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order under appeal dated 6-9-2005 is set aside. Appeal allowed. .