Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellant challenged the criteria fixed, for promotion to officers cadre (JMG-I) through Process-A, vide circular No.32/05-06. Learned single Judge having upheld the criteria, this writ appeal has been preferred. 2. The brief facts of the case is that a memorandum of settlement u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as ID Act) was reached between the All India Indian Overseas Bank Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as Union) and the Management of Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as Bank) on 22nd March, 1978. Under the settlement, different conditions of service, including the criteria for promotion from clerical and subordinate cadre to officers cadre was laid down. The case of promotions were considered by issuance of circulars from time to time, including Memo No.7 (f) 55 of 1990-91 dated 31st July, 1990; Memo No.7 (f) 59 of 1993-94 dated 26th July, 1993, circular No.7 (f) 70/1998-99 dated 17th Sept., 1998 and Memo No.7 (f) 90/1998-99 dated 3rd Nov., 1998, and cases of eligible candidates were considered and they were promoted to the higher post, including officer cadre (JMG-I). By circular No.7 (f) 34/2003-04 dated 19th July, 2003, while circulating the eligibility criteria for promotion for the purpose of determination of eligibility as on 31st Dec., 2004, following three sources of recruitment were shown :- i) Process – A – (Merit – cum – Interview Promotion) ii) Process – B (Regular) – (Limited Examination – cum- Merit Promotion) iii) Process – B (Fast Track Process) – (Merit Promotion based on Limited Competitive Examination) 3. Though the challenge is in regard to eligibility criteria fixed for Process-A, but to appreciate the argument, it is necessary to notice the basis of such process of selection and the eligibility criteria fixed for such purpose, gist of which are shown hereunder :- Process – A : i) 40% of all officers post (JMG-I) to be filled up on the basis of seniority and interview ; ii) Clerical and Subordinate employees, who have completed 18 years of service, irrespective of their qualification (except Record Keeper / Shroff, whose qualification is less than VIII standard); and (iii) The eligible candidates to be drawn and called for interview in the ratio of 1:4. The following marks were provided against different heads : "2. The following marks were provided against different heads : "2. Allotment of Marks : Marks shall be allotted on the following basis :- Marks Interview 50 Educational Qualification 05 Confidential Report 05 Service 35 Weightage for Rural Service 03 Entrustment of Duties of Special Assistant/ Stenographer 02 TOTAL 100 "3. Marks for Educational Qualification shall be given as under :- a) b) Graduation from Recognized University or its equivalent (or) Post Graduate/L.L.B. Or equivalent degree for which graduation is the minimum qualification (or) Degree/P.G. Diploma in Computer Science from Recognized University (and) CAIIB-1/JAIIB/CAIB (London) – Part I (or) CAIIB/CAIB (London) 01 Mark 02 Marks 01 Mark 03 Marks "4. The Service Mark shall be computed as under :- No. of completed years of service Total Marks 18 05 19 10 20 15 21 20 22 25 23 30 24 and above 35 "5. Confidential Report : There shall be 5 marks for confidential report. The work performance/punctuality/behaviour of eligible candidates shall be assessed from the confidential report, specially called for this purpose from the Branch manager/Department head of the administrative office where he/she is working." Process – B (Regular) : i) 36% of officers post (JMG-I) to be filled up from employees in the clerical cadre ; and ii) Eligibility – working experience based on qualification :- "12. Eligibility : All employees in the Clerical Cadre who have put up the qualifying service as under shall be eligible to apply and appear for the written test under this process. a) 1) Under Graduate 7 years 2) Under Graduate with CAIIB/CAIB (London) 6 years 3) Under Graduate with CAIIB/CAIB (London) 4 years b) 1) Graduate of Recognized University or equivalent 6 years 2) Graduate of Recognized University or equivalent with Part-I CAIIB/CAIB (London) 5 years 3) Graduate with CAIIB/CAIB London 3 years c) 1) Post Graduate/L.L.B. Or equivalent Degree in law for which graduation is the minimum qualification/Degree/P.G. Diploma in computer science from recognised university 5 years 2) Post Graduate/L.L.B. Or equivalent Degree in law for which graduation is the minimum qualification/Degree/P.G. Diploma in computer science from recognised university with Part-I CAIIB/CAIB London. 4 years 3) Post Graduate/L.L.B. Or equivalent Degree in law for which graduation is the minimum qualification from recognised university with CAIIB/CAIB London 3 years 4) Degree/P.G. Diploma in computer science from recognised university with CAIIB/CAIB London 5 years 14. 4 years 3) Post Graduate/L.L.B. Or equivalent Degree in law for which graduation is the minimum qualification from recognised university with CAIIB/CAIB London 3 years 4) Degree/P.G. Diploma in computer science from recognised university with CAIIB/CAIB London 5 years 14. Allotment of Marks : Marks shall be allotted on the following basis :- Marks Interview 65 Service 20 Qualification 07 Confidential Report 05 Weightage to Rural Service / Entrustment of Special Assistant / Stenographer duties 03 TOTAL 100 "15. Service : Marks On completion of 03 years 01 04 years 02 05 years 03 06 years 04 07 years 05 08 years 06 09 years 07 10 years 08 11 years 09 12 years 10 13 years 11 14 years 12 15 years 14 16 years 16 17 years 18 18 years and above 20 16. Qualification : a) 1) Graduate of recognised university or equivalent 2) Post Graduate/L.L.B. Or equivalent Degree in law for which graduation is the minimum qualification / Degree / P.G. Diploma in computer science from recognised university 1 Mark 3 Marks and b) 1) Part-I CAIIB/CAIB London 2) CAIID/CAIB London 2 Marks 4 Marks 18. Weightage to Rural Service/Entrustment of Special Assistant/Stenographer Duties : Any employee worked/continues to work in a rural place other than the place of domicile for the period of 3 years and above shall be awarded half mark for every year of completed service beyond 3 years subject to a maximum of 3 marks. Process – B (Fast Track Process) : 24% of promotion to officer cadre (JMG-I), from employees in the clerical cadre only, on the basis of written test. "21. Eligibility : All employees in the clerical cadre who are eligible under Process B (Regular) and whose age do not exceed 45 years as on 312. 2004, i.e., whose date of birth falls on or after 01.01.1960 shall be eligible to be considered for promotion under this process, provided they secure 65% marks and above in the written test. 22. Selection : Selection list will be drawn from the successful employees who do not exceed 45 years and obtain 65% marks and above in the written test. No weightage will be given for service, qualification, confidential report, rural service, etc. If the number of employees securing 65% marks and above is more than the number of vacancies, earmarked, then it will be restricted to the number of vacancies. No weightage will be given for service, qualification, confidential report, rural service, etc. If the number of employees securing 65% marks and above is more than the number of vacancies, earmarked, then it will be restricted to the number of vacancies. The remaining candidates will be considered under Process B (Regular) as per norms. If the number of employees securing 65% marks and above is less than the number of vacancies earmarked then the remaining vacancies will be clubbed along with the Regular Process under Process B. Suitable relaxation of marks for members belonging to SC/ST, as per Government guideline from time to time will be made. 23. Allotment of Marks : Only based on the marks obtained in the written test conducted by IBPS/external agencies entrusted by the Bank, etc., selection will be made. No marks will be allotted for service, qualification, confidential reports, rural service, weightage for Special Assistants/Steno in the fast track process under Process B." 4. In the present appeal, the grievance of the appellant is in respect of prescription of marks allocated for interview and other qualification so far as it relates to Process-A. Learned senior counsel for the appellant attacked the prescription of marks shown against different caption for promotion pursuant to Process-A and compared it with marks allotted against such similar caption for promotion pursuant to Process-B (Regular). It was submitted that while 50 marks allocated for interview for promotion through Process-A, for such promotion to the same post through Process-B (Regular), no marks have been allocated. Similarly, though 5 marks allocated for educational qualification for promotion through Process-A, 7 marks allocated towards qualification for promotion to the same post through Process-B (Regular). Individual marks allotted for different qualifications for both sets of selections were compared and submitted that such prescription of different marks is discriminatory as persons to be promoted to the same higher post from amongst employees in the clerical cadre, who are equally situated. 5. Learned counsel for the bank submitted that the appellant having not challenged the promotion policy framed pursuant to settlement reached u/s 12 (3) of ID Act, he cannot challenge the criteria as intimated for selection in a particular year, i.e., 2003-04. 5. Learned counsel for the bank submitted that the appellant having not challenged the promotion policy framed pursuant to settlement reached u/s 12 (3) of ID Act, he cannot challenge the criteria as intimated for selection in a particular year, i.e., 2003-04. Reliance was placed on one or other decision of Supreme Court to suggest that the settlement reached between the management and Union u/s 12 (3) of ID Act is binding on all, including those who are not a party to the settlement. It was also informed that the case of the appellant was considered for promotion to officer cadre (JMG-I) as per Process-A pursuant to settlement dated 18th May, 2001 in the year 2005 and he having not come out successful, cannot challenge the intimation relating to subsequent selection without challenging the promotion policy framed pursuant to the settlement. Counsel for the bank placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Mayurakshi Cotton Mills & Ors. - Vs – Panchra Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Employees Union & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 446 .. In the said case, Supreme Court held that fairness of a settlement or validity cannot be examined in absence of factual background. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in National Engineering Industries Ltd. - Vs – State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 ., wherein the Supreme Court held that where a settlement is arrived at in a conciliation proceeding, it will be presumed that the settlement was just and fair. 6. Now it is settled law that a settlement reached between the parties u/s 12 (3) of ID Act, if not declared illegal by any Court of competent jurisdiction, is not only binding on the parties to the settlement, but also on all workmen, including members of the other unions of such organisation. However, in the present case, as the settlement is not under challenge, we are not deliberating on the question whether the guideline framed pursuant to such settlement, including promotion policy, to the post of officer cadre (JMG-I) is legal or not. 7. It will be evident from impugned Memo No.7 (f) 34/2003-04 dated 19th uly, 2003, that it is a notice of consideration of case of promotion in a particular year, wherein eligibility criteria has been shown for the knowledge of the employees based on the promotion policy framed pursuant to the settlement. 7. It will be evident from impugned Memo No.7 (f) 34/2003-04 dated 19th uly, 2003, that it is a notice of consideration of case of promotion in a particular year, wherein eligibility criteria has been shown for the knowledge of the employees based on the promotion policy framed pursuant to the settlement. The three processes, i.e., Process-A, Process-B (Regular) and Process-B (Fast Track) being based on different criteria, eligibility of officers being different, they are class by themselves, though the employees may belong to one cadre. It is settled law that the framers of the rules are the competent authority to determine a promotion policy and Court has no role to play till such promotion policy is challenged on the ground of jurisdiction or arbitrariness. So far as the three sources for promotion is concerned, i.e., Process-A, Process-B (Regular) and Process-B (Fast Track), eligibility criteria of Process-A being different from those, who are eligible for promotion through Process-B (Regular & Fast Track), they being class by themselves no comparison could be made between those three sets of eligible candidates on the ground that they belong to the same cadre. It will be evident that Process-A is based on seniority-cum-interview. For the said reason 50 marks allocated towards interview and 35 marks for service (seniority) and only 15 marks allocated against other heads. On the other hand, Process-B (Regular) promotion being based on written test-cum-merit, 65 marks allocated for written test, 20 marks for service and rest of the marks for other qualification (merit), but no marks allocated for interview. Similarly, Process-B (Fast Track) being completely based on merit in the written test, minimum marks prescribed is 65 in the written test and promotion is based on merit position in such test. Therefore, the appellant cannot compare the marks allocated against one or other caption for promotion through Process-A with marks allocated against different captions for promotion through Process-B (Regular) or Process-B (Fast Track). Further, appellant having taken part in such selection pursuant to similar criteria of Process-A and being unsuccessful, cannot challenge such criteria indirectly by challenging the intimation of selection for the year 2003-04 as made vide impugned memo No.7 (f) 34/2003-04 dated 19th July, 2003. 8. So far as 50% marks in viva voce is concerned, it cannot be held to be arbitrary. 8. So far as 50% marks in viva voce is concerned, it cannot be held to be arbitrary. Similar matter was considered by Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmad – Vs – State of Bihar reported in (1994) 1 SCC 150 . The Supreme Court having noticed that 50 marks was allocated for viva voce test and 50 marks for academic performance, upheld the same and held that the question of weightage of marks in interview vis-a-vis marks for written test could arise only when written test is taken, but if no such written test is taken, there is no hard and fast rule regarding the precise weightage to be given to viva voce test. 9. Learned single Judge having discussed the matter in detail in her impugned judgment dated 7. 2007 in W.P. No.2444 of 2007, and for the reason as mentioned above, no interference is required in this appeal. There being no merit, this writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.