Judgment ( 1. ) THROUGH this writ petition, petitioner claims the relief of quashing of order dated 20-7-99 Annexure P-11 whereby his appeal/representation was rejected. Simultaneously, petitioner also challenges the selection and promotion of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to MMGS-II ). ( 2. ) NECESSARY facts which are relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition and which are no longer in dispute are as under. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 8 entered the bank services as clerical staff. In order to provide promotion to the clerical staff to Junior Management Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as JMGS-I) which is the lowest rung of the officers cadre in the hierarchy. There is a provision for the selection through process of examination consisting of written examination, personal interview, appraisal of acrs, etc. In the year 1992 the examination took place for JMGS-I. Although petitioner was eligible but he could not appear in the examination because he did not receive the call letter. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as M. P. No. 1809/02. It is not disputed that respondent nos. 3 to 8 appeared in 1992 examination and cleared it for being promoted to jmgs-I. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was ultimately disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21-2-94 and this Court accepted the proposal made by the bank. It was recorded by the Court in the order itself that the proposal submitted by the bank was very fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. The net result was that when petitioner cleared the JMGS-I examination in the year 1994, he was given notional appointment with effect from 1-12-92 in view of the offer made by the bank before this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the promotion policy declared by the bank, he was eligible to appear in the MMGS-II examination in the year 1998 whereas respondent Nos. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the promotion policy declared by the bank, he was eligible to appear in the MMGS-II examination in the year 1998 whereas respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were wrongly allowed to appear in the examination as they were ineligible without having completed minimum six years of service in JMGS-I. It was submitted that in order to bestow favour on these respondents a departure from the promotion policy was made and they were allowed to participate in the examination process and ultimately selected and promoted to MMGS-II at the cost of petitioner. It was contended that bank harboured prejudice against the petitioner and, therefore, he thrown out of the race deliberately. Thus, according to the petitioner his rejection and the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 for MMGS-II is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. ( 3. ) AFTER show-cause notice respondents filed their separate return and it was pointed out therein by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that respondent Nos. 3 to 8 had cleared the JMGS-I in the year 1992 but could not get the promotion along with their batch mats on 1-12-92 for no fault on their part. For reasons beyond their control, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were given appointment in JMGS-I on 1-6-93. As per promotion policy, there is a Fast Promotion Channel to mmgs-II as provided in Annexure P-3. In order to become eligible to participate in the process of Fast Promotion Channel Examination an officer belonging to JMGS-I must complete six years of service on 1st December of the year in which the MMGS-II examination is held. It may be pertinent to point out that every year this Fast Promotion Channel examination exercise is conducted by the bank. In the year 1998 the management announced on 23-9-98 that the test for promotion to MMGS-II will be held on 11th October, 1998 and along with this circular list of eligible officers were also displayed wherein name of petitioner appear at S. No. 143. Undisputedly names of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were not included in the said list because as on 1-12-98 they had not completed six years of service to their credit in JMGS-I. Respondent Nos. Undisputedly names of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were not included in the said list because as on 1-12-98 they had not completed six years of service to their credit in JMGS-I. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 made a representation to the management pointing out that there was no fault on their part and for the reasons beyond their control they were not appointed on 1-12-92 in JMGS-I. Considering the facts the matter was placed before the executive Committee of the bank. The Executive Committee after examining the matter was of the view to relax the condition of six years of service for these six officers. Simultaneously they were issued provisional call letters with their roll Number so as to permit in the examination process however subject to the final outcome with regard to the relaxation. The decision of the Executive committee which is next to the Board of Directors, was sent to the Government of India for its approval. The Government of India directed that the matter be placed before the Board of Directors. In view of the stand taken by the Central government, the matter was placed before the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 3-12-98. The Board of Directors in the said meeting passed a resolution approving the relaxation of six years of service in JMGS-I. Same day letter was written to the Government of India along with resolution passed by the Board of Directors. The Government of India by letter dated 9-12-98 approved the resolution and the eligibility criteria was relaxed. All these correspondence have been placed on record along with the reply of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. ( 4. ) IN the aforesaid background it was contended by Shri Pawecha that no undue favour was shown to respondent Nos. 3 to 8. He submitted that it is not a case of nepotism or favouritism. It was also pointed out that this exercise of relaxation was also done earlier as has been noticed in the minutes of the Executive Committee. Not only that, it was also contended that it was well within the powers of respondents to relax the eligibility criteria depending upon the requirement and exigencies of administration. This power can not be questioned by the unsuccessful candidates who had failed to make it to the mmgs-II through Fast Promotion Channel. Not only that, it was also contended that it was well within the powers of respondents to relax the eligibility criteria depending upon the requirement and exigencies of administration. This power can not be questioned by the unsuccessful candidates who had failed to make it to the mmgs-II through Fast Promotion Channel. It was also contended that it is within the power of Board of Directors to lay down the promotion policy in view of the provisions contained under Section 17 of the State Bank of Indore (Officers) Services Regulations, 1979 which reads as under :- "17. (1) Promotion to all grades of officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board or the executive Committee from time to time having regard to the State banks guidelines. Explanation: for the avoidance of doubts it is clarified that the provisions of this regulation shall also apply to promotions of any category of employees to the junior management grade. " ( 5. ) THUS, according to him there is nothing wrong with the decision of relaxation of eligibility criteria in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 which is fair and class by themselves. It was also contended that petitioner could not secure enough marks to be included in the fit list and, therefore, he could not be permitted to assail the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 for his non-selection to MMGS-II. ( 6. ) I have heard learned Counsel for parties at length. Perused the material available on record. ( 7. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no merit and substance in the writ petition and the same being devoid of any substance, deserves to be dismissed. ( 8. ) FROM the various correspondences it is clear that management rightly thought that the eligibility criteria should be relaxed in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and this stood approved not only by the Executive committee but also by the Board of Directors which are the highest authorities to decide and lay down the promotion policies so far as officers of the bank are concerned. The relaxation in the eligibility criteria also had approval of the central Government. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fault can be found with the relaxation of the eligibility criteria. The relaxation in the eligibility criteria also had approval of the central Government. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fault can be found with the relaxation of the eligibility criteria. Learned Counsel for petitioner was not right on contending that this was the only instance when the eligibility criteria was relaxed. It was done earlier also and there can be no distinction between relaxation of eligibility criteria for two months or six months. The management is the best judge to decide whether the eligibility criteria is to be relaxed or not. The decision taken by the Board of Directors had the seal of approval of Central Government. Thus, participation of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the examination process in such anticipation, is not open to challenge. ( 9. ) NOW coming back to the non-selection of the petitioner, except for the bald assertion, no other material or allegation has been placed on record to show that there was any prejudice against the management. No individual has been also impleaded by name so as to show that particular gentlemen in the management was having prejudice against the petitioner and was instrumental in his non-selection to the MMGS-II. It is very easy to make wild allegation but very difficult to substantiate them. Petitioner was allowed to participate in the examination and having participated in the examination, if he is failed then no fault can be attributed to the management because Undisputedly the Fast promotion Channel is a kind of promotion based upon merit of a person. It is not the case of petitioner that he was not allowed to participate in the examination. Thus, having failed to make it to the fit list, petitioner can not be permitted to turn around to question the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in this oblique manner. There is no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merit and substance it is hereby dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.