JUDGMENT 1. - Both, CWP No. 826/98 filed by Om Prakash Gupta and No. 1239/98 filed by Bhoop Singh since involve common questions of law, were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It is made clear that Kishan Kumar Sharma (petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 1239/98) moved an application to dismiss his petition as not pressed, as such vide order dated 9.7.1999 that application was allowed and CWP No. 1239/98 as regards Kishan Kumar Sharma was dismissed as not pressed. 3. Instant petition has been filed questioning decision of respondent Bank in holding petitioners unsuitable for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale III ("MMGS-III") and further assailing action of respondents whereby their appeals with regard to unsuitability were also rejected by a non-speaking order.Re. CWP No. 826/98 4. Petitioner initially joined service as Clerk on 10.12.1970 and was promoted as Junior Management Gr. I on 1.6.1978 and as MMGS-II on 1.8.1985, which is a substantive post presently held by him. Indisputably, petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of MMGS-III and as per promotion policy of respondent Bank, after being considered for promotion to MMGS-III in 1989, 90, 94 & 96, he was not found suitable.Re. CWP No. 1239/98 5. Bhoop Singh petitioner initially joined service as Clerk on 26.8.1977. He was promoted as JMGS-I on 1.2.1984 and MMGS-II on 1.8.1990. After being considered for promotion to MMGS-III in 1996, he was not found suitable and his juniors were promoted vide order dated 6.4.1996 (Ann. 4), dated 30.12.1996 (Ann. 5) & dated 2.1.1998 (Ann. 6). 6. Thereafter when selection process for promotion was initiated in the year 1998 and onwards till 2005, petitioners despite being eligible abstained from participation in process of selection, itself, as such there was no consideration in subsequent years. 7. For promotion to the post of MMGS-111, respondent Bank issued its policy vide circulars dated 24.11.1984 (Ann. 1) and 25.5.1990 (Ann. 2). As per 1984 policy (Ann. 7. For promotion to the post of MMGS-111, respondent Bank issued its policy vide circulars dated 24.11.1984 (Ann. 1) and 25.5.1990 (Ann. 2). As per 1984 policy (Ann. 4), in process of selection, a Committee consisting of two General Managers & an Assistant General Manager are required to make assessment by appraisal of performance of all eligible officers on the basis of past 5 years` confidential reports as also their achievement in various key responsibility areas held by them; and after interviewing eligible officers on the basis of combined rating given for their annual appraisal & performance at the interview, the Committee makes its recommendations to the Managing Director (competent authority) in order of merit of names of officers found suitable for fitment, equivalent to number of vacancies in MMGS-III. As per clause (iv) of policy of 1984 (Ann. 1), those who were aggrieved by their decision holding them unsuitable can prefer appeal before Executive Committee of the Bank which will examine overall performance and recommendation of promotion committee. A promotion appraisal form for the post of MMGS-III as a sample has been appended as Schedule A to. writ petition (No. 826/98). 8. It has also not been disputed even by petitioner that in all years 1989 to 1996, petitioner Om Prakash was considered by Committee under respective policy but has not been found suitable for promotion. According to petitioners, their juniors were promoted vide orders dated 23.11.1993 (Ann. 4) from 1.8.1989; dated 5.11.1990 (Ann. 5) from 1.8.1990, dated 16.2.1994 (Ann. 6), dated 6.12.1994 (Ann. 7) from 1.12.1994; dated 6.4.1996 (Ann. 8) from 30.3.1996; dated 30.10.1996 (Ann. 9) from 16.12.1996 and dated 2.1.1998 (Ann. 10) from 1.12.1997. Against these promotions (supra), they preferred appeals and that too were rejected by appellate authority, for which the case of petitioners is that communication of rejection of appeal does not disclose reasons assigned for holding petitioners unsuitable for promotion to the post in question. 9. 9) from 16.12.1996 and dated 2.1.1998 (Ann. 10) from 1.12.1997. Against these promotions (supra), they preferred appeals and that too were rejected by appellate authority, for which the case of petitioners is that communication of rejection of appeal does not disclose reasons assigned for holding petitioners unsuitable for promotion to the post in question. 9. Shri Vikrant Gupta, Counsel for petitioners contends that service record of petitioners from the very inception and entry into service is clean and unblemished with not an iota of complaint or inquiry against them and since promotion policy does not contemplate to disclose marks allocated by promotion Committee under each of separate heads, which have never been communicated to them as to on what premise, they have been found to be unsuitable; such action of respondent in adjudging suitability which gives ample & unbridled discretion to the Committee for adjudging over all suitability of incumbent, is totally arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 10. Counsel further contends that petitioners were undeniably senior in the cadre of MMGS-II which is feeder post and officers much juniors to them in the cadre were promoted and even if their service record on comparative assessment might not be to that extent as considered by promotion committee, yet seniority has to be given its due weightage which has not been considered by respondent at any stage, therefore, very process adopted under promotion policy makes selection impugned, itself, illegal because there was no element of seniority to be given due weightage and that being so, right of consideration of senior persons like petitioners has seriously been jeopardized; as such the procedure adopted in implementing promotion policy (Ann. 1) has been arbitrarily exercised being violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. In this regard, Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sher Singh v. Surendra Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 2289 & B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanku Babu, 1998 (5) JT (SC) 96 and of this court in S.P. Maloo v. Rajasthan Housing Board, 1994 (3) WLC 251 . 11. In this regard, Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sher Singh v. Surendra Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 2289 & B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanku Babu, 1998 (5) JT (SC) 96 and of this court in S.P. Maloo v. Rajasthan Housing Board, 1994 (3) WLC 251 . 11. Counsel has further urged that under promotion policy there is provision of appeal which lies before Executive Committee and despite appeal preferred by petitioners, assailing proceedings of selection holding them unsuitable by way of their performance appraisal of five years, that too were rejected by non-speaking order assigning no reasons of rejection of their appeals by appellate authority and thus neither the promotion committee which adjudged their suitability nor appellate authority has assigned reasons as to on what premise and basis they were held unsuitable continuously in six promotion exercise to the post of MMGS-111. Shri Gupta urged that once there is right of appeal provided under policy, it is implicit that appellate authority must independently examine and assess complete record by taking note of appraisal of performance made by promotion committee and at least must give its own finding as to why recommendations made by the Committee are acceptable, which are necessarily to be communicated to incumbent so as to know about his performance recorded and considered by promotion Committee in holding him unsuitable and those reasons can alone make incumbent enable to show better performance in case there is any lack on his part in subsequent process of promotion in course of which they participated and in the absence whereof, very purpose of filing appeal remains an empty formality and is not going to serve any purpose or object with which an opportunity of filing appeal has been provided under the promotion policy. In support of his contention, Shri Gupta placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fizi v. State of Punjab, 1979 (1) SLR (SC) 804 & State of Rajasthan v. Sriram Verma, 1996 (6) SCC 493 . 12. Respondents have filed their reply. In support of his contention, Shri Gupta placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fizi v. State of Punjab, 1979 (1) SLR (SC) 804 & State of Rajasthan v. Sriram Verma, 1996 (6) SCC 493 . 12. Respondents have filed their reply. Apart from merits, preliminary objection has been raised that promotion exercise under challenge has attained finality and appeals preferred were also rejected way back commencing from 1991 but the same has been challenged in February 1998 and all those incumbents who were finally found suitable and recommended have joined on promotional post of MMGS-III; as such questioning their promotion at such belated stage will certainly disturb their right accrued and in absence of any reasonable justification brought forward by petitioners, such delay itself in filing instant petitions is sufficient to dismiss the same. Further objection has been raised by respondent that all promotion exercises undertaken in years 1989, 94, 96 give petitioners a separate cause of action and one petition questioning five selection process of different years cannot be questioned in single petition and it is misjoinder of causes of action. Third objection raised by respondent is that those selected under impugned promotion orders are necessary party to writ petition and in their absence, no relief can be granted to petitioners and despite objection, they have not been impleaded even few in representative capacity and In absence whereof, petitions deserve to be dismissed.Shri Gopal Garg Counsel for respondent bank contended that once petitioners have participated in process of selection knowing well about procedure adopted by the Committee which was known to all incumbents, and after their participation on being found unsuitable, they cannot now question action or procedure adopted by Committee in adjudging their suitability and the, petitioners are estopped from raising objection against selection process at this belated stage. 13. As regards merits, respondent has averred in the reply at para 8 that though promotion policy does not provide allocation of marks against Assignment Appraisal Reports, Annual Confidential Reports/Traits & interview, but for such categories, assessment sheets contain in details about the marks allocated for assignment, appraisal reports and as against annual confidential reports for five years, 'General Intelligence', 'Job knowledge', 'initiative and resourcefulness', and as against 'initiative', 'decision making', problem solving, 'inter-personal skills' and leadership skills, marks are allocated separately. It has also been averred that on the basis of over all assessment, the Committee considered candidature. of eligible officers including petitioners who were within zone of consideration for the years in question and as per statement furnished by respondents - copy whereof has been supplied to the petitioner's counsel. Petitioners secured following marks in promotion process which is impugned in the writ petition: Re. Om Prakash Gupta Date of Promotion Total Vacancies Marks obtained by petitioner/last select 16.2.1994 165 79.33/ 102.33 1.12.1994 48 85.00/ 113.33 30.3.1996 61 99.00/ 107.67 16.12.1996 68 111.00/ 115.33 1.12.1997 106 118.00/ 121 Re. Bhoop Singh 30.3.1996 61 96.67/ 107.67 16.12.1996 68 103.67/ 115.33 1.12.1997 106 103.00 / 121 14. Shri Garg also contends that procedure adopted by the Committee in adjudging overall suitability of officers has been uni formally applied to all incumbents who participated in process of selection - in absence of any malice imputed against members of promotion Committee/appellate authority, this court will not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate assessment made by high power committee which held petitioners unsuitable after adjudging their suitability. In support of his submission, Counsel placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin, 1987 (4) SCC 486 , Nutan Arvind v. Union of India, 1996 (2) SCC 488 & 1999 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 454 . 15. Shri Garg further urged that there is no provision under the policy to assign reasons while deciding appeal by the Executive Committee - apart from it the authority has looked into the entire record and since find no merit has rejected the appeal preferred; as such communication whereof is in consonance with the policy in vogue. Counsel further submits that once the material has been disclosed before this Court and petitioner has also been apprised of it no prejudice can be said to have caused to him in such circumstances. 16. Counsel further submits that once the material has been disclosed before this Court and petitioner has also been apprised of it no prejudice can be said to have caused to him in such circumstances. 16. To meet out preliminary objections raised by respondent, Counsel for petitioner urged that petitioners' appeals were rejected in 1993, 1994 & 1996 and he was always hopeful that when he maintained good record of service certainly he will get promotion but finally when arrived at conclusion that in the absence of judicial intervention, respondents are not going to give him a fair consideration, that constrained him to approach this Court and the delay which has caused, in fact, does not infringe right of any third party and as such is not fatal which may deprive him of legitimate right of seeking fair consideration for promotion. Shri Gupta further submits that no relief has been claimed by him against those selected in the impugned promotions and his grievance is confined to conclusions drawn by respondents holding them to be unsuitable and since process of selection was initiated by respondent and it is only for the impleaded respondent alone who has to disclose justification for holding them to be unsuitable; as such in the absence of relief claimed against those selected under impugned promotion process, they are neither necessary nor proper party. 17. Shri Gupta in support of his contention placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in General Manager South Central Railway v. Siddhantti, 1974 (4) SCC 335 , A. Janardhana v. Union of India, 1983 (3) SCC 601 and V.P. Srivastava v. State of M.P., 1996 (7) SCC 759 . 18. As regards objection raised about misjoinder of causes of action, Shri Gupta further contends that petitioners have only questioned his supercession in the cadre of MMGS-III and his grievance in question is one & same and as such his supercession made in different years can certainly be challenged in a single petition and is not to be construed as misjoinder of causes of action. 19. I have considered rival contentions made by Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Before dealing with merits, I would like to first decide preliminary objection. 19. I have considered rival contentions made by Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Before dealing with merits, I would like to first decide preliminary objection. As regards first objection with respect to delay, in my opinion, petitioner has only questioned his own supercession and no relief has been claimed qua those selected in different process of selection whereby petitioners were found unsuitable during the period in question, no intervening rights of third party have accrued which may deprive petitioner of seeking relief as prayed for and justification which has been submitted is also based on reasonable prudence, which in my opinion, cannot be considered to be fatal in facts situation of instant matter. 20. So far as objection with respect to impleadment of those selected for promotions under challenge is concerned, in my opinion since relief claimed herein is confined to decision of respondent holding petitioners unsuitable and neither prayed nor in course of arguments any submission was made by Counsel questioning suitability of those selected incumbents for promotion; as such objection raised with respect to impleadment of individuals selected for promotions, is devoid of substance. Next objection with regard to misjoinder of causes of action is also bereft of any merit in facts situation of instant controversy. As regards objection raised with respect to questioning policy after participation in process of selection is concerned, in my opinion, since no submission has been made questioning policy, this objection is devoid of merit. Hence all preliminary objections raised by respondent Bank (supra) stand overruled. 21. Let me advert to merits of the matter. As per promotion policy of 1984 (Ann. 1), a Committee consisting of two General Managers & an Assistant General Manager is required to make assessment by appraisal of performance of all eligible officers on the basis of past 5 years' confidential reports as also their achievement in various key responsibility areas held by them; and after interviewing eligible officers on the basis of combined rating given for their annual appraisal & performance at the interview, Committee makes selection and send its recommendations to the Managing Director (competent authority) in order of names of officers found suitable for fitment, equivalent to number of vacancies in MMGS-III. Counsel for respondent Bank has also brought to my notice the minutes of management committee meeting held on 5th January, 1994 - as per which the Committee took note of policy for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-III approved by Executive Committee at its meeting held on 17th May, 1990 and observed that policy did not prescribe the manner in which scoring is to be awarded under each category - (a) performance, (b) annual confidential reports, (c) Traits and (d) interview 'and, therefore, the Management committee deliberated on this matter and considered it expedient to give suitable guidelines for judging suitability or otherwise of the candidates eligible for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-III and accordingly, the Management Committee decided that the following marking pattern be adopted by Interview Committee: Performance : 60 Marks Anual Confidential Reports (for 5 years) : 20 Marks Traits (for 5 traits) : 20 Marks Interview : 50 Marks The scoring mechanism for awarding marks under each of aforesaid heads is given as under: (1) Assignment appraisal report 60 Marks Overall rating Marks Good 60 Excellent 50 Above Average 40 Average 30 Poor 00 Annual Confidential Report Max Marks 30 Weitage 20 Rating Marks Per Item Max. Marks Excellent 2 30 Good 1.50 22.50 Above Average 1.00 15.00 Average 0.50 07.50 Below Average/Poor No. Marks No Marks (3) TRAITS 20 Marks Parameter Marks E G AA A P 4 3 2 1 0 (a) Initiative; (b) Decision Making; (c) Problem Solving; (d) Inter-personal skills (e)Leadership skills. (4) Interview 50 Marks 10 Marks for each parameter E G AA A 10 8 5 3 As per decision taken in meeting dated 5.1.1994 (supra) Management Committee also observed as under: "As all eligible candidates are being called for interview, there is no need for a separate Evaluation Committee. However, the Interview Committee for this purpose will scrutinise all recommendations received from various Controlling Authorities to ensure uniformity of approach in awarding marks under the first three heads. Where the Committee differs from the appraisal made by the Recommending Authority in any case specific reasons therefor should be recorded duly signed by all the Committee members. 3. It was further decided that unless a candidate secures 25 marks out of 50 in interview, he will not be considered for promotion." 22. Where the Committee differs from the appraisal made by the Recommending Authority in any case specific reasons therefor should be recorded duly signed by all the Committee members. 3. It was further decided that unless a candidate secures 25 marks out of 50 in interview, he will not be considered for promotion." 22. In view of what has been quoted (supra), it clearly depicts that all applicants who participated in promotion process were considered by high power committee constituted by respondent as per allocation of marks on different heads (supra), the Committee after adjudging over-all suitability allocated separate marks for performance based on five years ACRs, Traits, and so also interview. Procedure shown by respondent (supra) - adopted in course of selection process for promotions under challenge, in which petitioners participated, in my opinion does not smack of arbitrariness either in guidelines given by the Management Committee, after or in process of selection impugned for adjudging over all suitability of participants including petitioners. 23. It is true that when promotions are made in accordance with policy based on adjudging over all suitability including performance, annual confidential reports, traits, it must ordinarily allocate marks on different heads which may rule out presumption of arbitrariness, if any, and this has been observed by Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sriram Verma, 1996 (6) SCC 493 in para 12 "In the matter of promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit, clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 28-B(11) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 neither provides for grading nor do they require the recording of reasons for superseding a senior. In such a situation and when the promotion is made by the departmental promotion committee, it cannot be held that ordinarily the DPC should record reasons for not selecting a senior (and selecting his juniors) or that at least the record should indicate some reasons therefor. It is one thing to say that such a course is fair and desirable but it is altogether a different thing to say that such a course is obligatory or necessary in all cases for in the latter even the selections made are liable to be set aside for not complying with the said requirement. It is one thing to say that such a course is fair and desirable but it is altogether a different thing to say that such a course is obligatory or necessary in all cases for in the latter even the selections made are liable to be set aside for not complying with the said requirement. At the same time, it is always desirable that procedure adopted by the selecting body should be fair and such as to lend credence to the process it should be such as to inspire confidence in all concerned within the practicable limits. From this point of view, it would be a wholesome step for the Government of Rajasthan - for that matter, all Governments - to provide either by amendment of Rules or by general instructions that in the matter of promotions on the basis of merit or merit-cum-seniority/merit-cum-seniority, the selecting authority should follow the method of grading all the candidates appearing before them. However, where the rules already provide for grading or for awarding marks or for recording of reason for overlooking a senior, this suggestion may not be applicable." (Para 12) 24. In view of what has been observed (supra), to maintain fairness in action, policy must disclose rating adopted in adjudging overall performance of incumbent as well. I find that after 1996 promotion policy adopted by respondent, itself, disclose allocation of marks and earlier there was decision of the Committee for allocation of marks on different heads - according to which impugned promotion were made. 25. Judged from this angle, submission of Counsel for petitioner that there is no specific allocation of marks while disclosing promotion policy adopted by respondents, gives arbitrary discretion, in my opinion, after looking into material on record including minutes of the Committee (supra) which have also been noticed by the Counsel, is devoid of merit. 26. As per promotion policy, the Management Committee after taking note of the guidelines approved by the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 17.5.1990 had proceeded in adjudging over all suitability of incumbents including petitioners. Relevant record has been placed before this Court which also disclose over all marks which petitioner secured in his performance for different relevant years under challenge herein. Relevant record has been placed before this Court which also disclose over all marks which petitioner secured in his performance for different relevant years under challenge herein. After looking to the record, I am satisfied that procedure adopted by respondent Bank was in consonance with policy and action in no manner can be said to be arbitrary which may call for interference by this Court. 27. It is settled principle that one has a fair right of consideration and not of promotion. Candidature of petitioners has been considered in terms of promotion policy read with the guidelines laid down by the Management Committee according to which marking pattern has been adopted by the interview Committee (supra); in instant fact situation even if marking pattern has not been disclosed in the promotion policy, it has not caused prejudice to the petitioners since all who participated in process of selection have been considered by the Committee by adopting one single standard and that being so, I am fully satisfied that there was no arbitrariness in the process of selection adopted by respondent in adjudging over all performance of incumbents including petitioners. 28. Judgment on which Shri Gupta placed reliance in S.P. Maloo v. Rajasthan Housing Board (supra), is of no assistance for the reason that in this case, Court was examining controversy where there were different heads and there was no separate allocation of marks, it was observed that if suitability of incumbent is adjudged under different heads that has to be considered by the Committee while adjudging suitability, but in instant case, after going through minutes of the Committee, I find that marks have been independently allocated which has been considered separately while adjudging overall suitability of incumbents. 29. Submission of petitioners that there were no adversity in their service record and absence of disclosure of marks allocated by the Committee is arbitrary, is of no substance for the reason because satisfactory record of service in no manner hold one to be suitable for promotion unless he is found to be over all meritorious by promotion committee and as per existing policy notified, seniority only makes incumbent eligible to participate in selection process against number of vacancies available; but over all performance has to be adjudged on the basis of service record including performance, traits and interview. In my opinion, seniority, as such, will not hold one to be suitable for promotion under policy in question and in the absence of policy being questioned, submission made by Counsel for petitioners is devoid of merit. 30. As regards submission made with regard to decision communicated by appellate authority, I find some merit in the same. Once there is a provision of appeal, it is imperative that the authority competent will examine it independently and the decision/outcome of the same must disclose basis on which appeal of incumbent has been rejected. Mere intimation to incumbent in my opinion, is not a true compliance to fulfil the object with which provision of appeal has been provided, which presupposes that incumbent must know reasons which prevailed upon, with the Committee/authority holding him to be unsuitable which alone will make him aware of to see that such lacking in performance may not continue any further and what needs improvement which may make him suitable for promotion in subsequent years. 31. However, in instant case, since this fact has been disclosed by respondent in course of arguments and so also made known to Counsel for petitioners, as well, which I have noted (supra), and as informed that in next eight promotion process they have not participated for the reason of their unsuitability even if communicated, I do not find that any purpose is now going to be served in directing respondent to disclose the reasons of their unsuitability. 32. An inevitable conclusion is that I do not find any error of law or arbitrariness in process of selection made by respondents in promotions under challenge herein while adjudging suitability and holding petitioners unsuitable. Consequently, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******