ORDER R.K. Gupta, J. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the aforesaid petitions, therefore, the same were heard analogously and are decided by this common order. The petitioners have challenged their supersession as they have not been promoted on the post of Middle Management Grade-H and the juniors have been promoted. The case of the petitioners is that criteria for selection i.e. "Seniority-cum-Merit" has not been applied and the criteria "Merit-cum-Seniority" has been applied. The facts leading to the present petitions are that there had been total 16 vacancies for promotion from the post of Middle Management Grade-I to Middle Management Grade-II and accordingly the process of selection was initiated. The process of selection was initiated by issuing a circular on 12-4-2004 by which all eligible persons were notified to appear in the written examination. The rule for seniority-cum-merit was to be applied for promotion. A notification was issued by the Central Government on 29-7-1998 (Annexure R-D/2). This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 read with section 17 thereof. These rules were notified in supersession of the earlier rules which were known as Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession. The new rules are named as Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1998"). According to these rules, out of total 100 marks prescribed, 60 marks were reserved for the written test, 20 marks for the interview and 20 marks were reserved for performance appraisal report. These rules also prescribe for zone of consideration of the employees and according to the same, as per ratio 1:4 the employees were to be brought within the zone of consideration. In the present case, since there had been 16 posts vacant, therefore, four times of the said vacancies, the employees were within the zone of consideration and thus the employees were also called for the written test. As it is evident that for the written examination 60 marks were prescribed, two papers were provided for 30 numbers each i.e. Part-A; 30 marks and Part-B; 30 marks. As it is evident that for the written examination 60 marks were prescribed, two papers were provided for 30 numbers each i.e. Part-A; 30 marks and Part-B; 30 marks. Under the Rules of 1998 (Annexure R-D/2), it is provided that the selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and performance appraisal report for preceding five years as per the division of marks. A seniority list was prepared by the respondent No. 1, which had been filed by the Management i.e. the respondent No. 1 with regard to the eligible persons, those who were eligible to appear in the written examination. The said document is filed as Annexure R-1/D-X. These persons were permitted to appear in the written examination. Part-A of the Rules of 1998 comprises of covering Banking Law and Practice and Part-B comprises of covering Credit Policy, Credit Management including the Priority Sector, Economics and Management. The said rule also prescribes that a list of only those candidates who secure minimum of 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall alone be called for interview. It also provides that there shall be no minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The performance appraisal report for the preceding five years was to be considered for which 20 marks were prescribed. In the present case, there is no dispute that all the petitioners succeeded in the written examination and they secured 40% marks which were the minimum cut off marks prescribed out of 60 and were called for the interview. The respondent No. 1-Management has also given the list of such candidates those who have passed in the written examination along with the written notes of argument, which is Annexure R-1/D-X wherein the names of the persons those who have been permitted along with the petitioners, have been shown. According to the Management out of 60 candidates those who appeared in the written examination only 32 candidates including all the petitioners secured more than 40% marks out of 60 marks in the written examination, therefore, all the 32 persons were called for interview. It would also be appropriate to refer to Circular issued by the Management, which is Annexure R-D-3 dated 12-4-2004. This was circulated for the information of all the incumbents with regard to the promotion policy from Middle Management Grade-I to Middle Management Grade-II. It would also be appropriate to refer to Circular issued by the Management, which is Annexure R-D-3 dated 12-4-2004. This was circulated for the information of all the incumbents with regard to the promotion policy from Middle Management Grade-I to Middle Management Grade-II. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said circular no minimum necessary merit marks were provided. In the Rules of 1998 which are referred to hereinabove also no minimum necessary merit marks were provided and notified. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that when the respondents have issued a circular (Annexure R-D/3) dated 12-4-2004 no minimum necessary merit marks were notified and on this basis it is submitted that selection has been made by applying the rule of "Merit-cum-Seniority" and rule of "Seniority-cum-merit", which is provided in the statutory rule as a criteria for promotion has not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Bhagwandas Tiwari and Others Vs. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others, and referred to para-14 of the judgment and submitted that the Apex Court has held that when the rule for "Seniority-cum-merit" is to be applied then the minimum necessary merit marks being relatable to criteria and if nowhere there is a stipulation in obtaining minimum marks as a compulsory measure then rule of "Seniority-cum-merit" is given a go-bye. On this basis it is submitted that though under the Rules of 1998, rule for "Seniority-cum-merit" as a criteria has been made applicable for promotion but when the circular dated 12-4-2004 (Annexure R-D/3) was issued by the respondents it did not provide the minimum necessary merit marks and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Bhagwandas Tiwari (supra). The para-14 of the said judgment reads as under :-- The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court missed one basic factor. The circular nowhere refers to the minimum marks being relatable to criteria A and C and nowhere there is a stipulation of obtaining minimum 35 marks as a compulsory measure. If really the intention was to apply the aid minimum marks to said criteria it would have been specifically provided that way. The circular nowhere refers to the minimum marks being relatable to criteria A and C and nowhere there is a stipulation of obtaining minimum 35 marks as a compulsory measure. If really the intention was to apply the aid minimum marks to said criteria it would have been specifically provided that way. It is noted by the High Court that in the circular or in the 115th or 117th report of the respondent No. 1 Bank there was no mention about this aspect. The doctrine of reading down the provisions has really no application to the facts of the case. If the stand of respondents is accepted, it would mean addition of a condition which is not specifically provided for. That is impermissible. It is true that when criteria for promotion is prescribed by the statutory rule as "Seniority-cum-merit" then by issuing the executive instructions the criteria can always be provided for scoring minimum necessary marks. During the course of argument also learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Management had not shown any record to this Court wherein the minimum necessary merit marks were provided either by the selection committee or by any of the circulars issued by the respondent No. 1. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Shri Umakant Sharma, Senior Advocate made a statement at the Bar that in the present case during the course of selection minimum necessary marks were not at all prescribed. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement, I am inclined to hold that no minimum necessary merit marks were prescribed and in the absence of any minimum necessary merit marks, the rule of "Seniority-cum-merit" has been given a go-bye and in fact the selection has been made by applying the rule of "Merit-cum-seniority". In this reference, again it would be profitable to refer to para-18 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Bhagwandas Tiwari (supra), which is reproduced as under:-- There is no basis, in the instant case, for the stand that for assessing merit a minimum number of marks has been prescribed. The contention that minimum marks were 45 out of 60, means that an employee is to secure 75% of marks. Such a high percentage cannot be a measure of prescribing minimum marks to assess merit. It obviously would be a case of shifting the focus to merit-cum-seniority. The contention that minimum marks were 45 out of 60, means that an employee is to secure 75% of marks. Such a high percentage cannot be a measure of prescribing minimum marks to assess merit. It obviously would be a case of shifting the focus to merit-cum-seniority. In Para-37 of Sivaiah case (supra), this Court noted that minimum marks prescribed for assessing merit do not depart from the seniority-cum-merit principle. But the factual position is different here. There is no mention that 45 marks out of 60 relate to the prescription of minimum marks for assessing the merit. In Jalal Uddin's case (supra) it was noted that in a seniority-cum-merit greater emphasis is on seniority though it is not the determinative factor. In the case of merit-cum-seniority, merit becomes a determinative factor. In fact, the position noted by this Court in Paragraphs 19, 20, 24 and 25 of Sivaiah case (supra) dealt with almost identical fact situation, apart from Paragraph 16 of the judgment. Now, it is necessary to see whether the rule of "Seniority-cum-merit" is given a go-bye. On the basis of the chart which has been supplied along with written argument by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, which is Annexure R-1/D-Z, N.K. Shrivastav, Harish Maheshwari and the petitioners Anil Singh, K.C. Soni, Narendra Sharma and P.K. Jaggi were not promoted. Before this Court, N.K. Shrivastav and Harish Maheshwari are not the petitioners. From the chart, which has been supplied to this Court along with written notes of argument and referred to hereinabove, the persons those who have scored higher percentage of marks out of 40 marks which were reserved, 20 each for performance appraisal report and 20 marks for interview, have been promoted and so far as seniors i.e. the petitioners, those who could not get higher percentage of marks out of 20 marks each on the aforesaid heads have not been promoted. There is nothing in the said chart that any minimum necessary merit marks were prescribed. The juniors to the present petitioners who have secured higher percentage of marks have been promoted. There is nothing in the said chart that any minimum necessary merit marks were prescribed. The juniors to the present petitioners who have secured higher percentage of marks have been promoted. In this reference, it would be also be appropriate to test the said selection in the light of the rule wherein it is provided that the selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and performance appraisal reports for the preceding five years, and there had also been allocation of marks which has already been stated above i.e. 60 marks for the written test; for two papers of 30 marks each, 20 marks for the interview and 20 marks for performance appraisal report. It is clear from the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Management that all the eligible persons were given opportunity to appear in the written examination and those who have secured 40% marks out of total 60 were called for interview and thereafter there is no whisper in the written argument or in the return as to how the junior persons to the petitioners have been promoted by applying the rule of "Seniority-cum-merit" On the basis of the written argument and the chart filed along with the written argument it is clear that the persons those who have secured higher marks alone have been promoted but no provision ever was made for prescribing the minimum cut off merit marks. Once the selection includes the written test, performance appraisal and interview and total 100 marks were provided for the same, then there has to be some minimum cut off marks out of 100 so that even a less meritorious senior incumbent could also be promoted and junior with better merits by applying the rule of "Seniority-cum-merit" could be ignored for his promotion. This would have been proper approach to apply the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". In this reference, again it will be profitable to refer to certain judgments passed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Another, , in para-12, has held as under :-- Wherever fitness is stipulated as the basis of selection, it is regarded as a non-selection post to be filled on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. Fitness means fitness in all respects. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Another, , in para-12, has held as under :-- Wherever fitness is stipulated as the basis of selection, it is regarded as a non-selection post to be filled on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. Fitness means fitness in all respects. "Seniority-cum-merit" postulates the requirement of certain minimum merit or satisfying a benchmark previously fixed. Subject to fulfilling this requirement the promotion is based on seniority. There is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-fitness and seniority cum-merit. Merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority as prescribed in the case of promotion to All-India Services necessarily involves assessment of comparative merit of all eligible candidates, and selecting the best out of them. A bare reading of the aforesaid passage clearly shows that the Apex Court has held that there is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-fitness and merit-cum-seniority. It would be relevant for the purposes of applying when the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority. The Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah and Others etc. Vs. K. Addankl Babu and Others etc., considered and explained as to how the rule of seniority-cum-merit should be made applicable. This was the case where the Apex Court was dealing with the promotion policy in the Regional Rural Banks and while considering the earlier judgments passed by the Apex Court explained the manner for the application of criteria "seniority -cum-merit" and "merit-cum-seniority" in the matter of promotions. Both these criteria cannot be equated. The comparative assessment of merit is required to be made while applying the criteria of "merit-cum-seniority" and in "seniority-cum-merit" no such comparative assessment is required and ultimately in paras-31 and 32 of its judgment, the Apex Court while discussing the process of selection in relation to Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, held as under :-- 31. Selection process for the purpose of promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager in the Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank was contained in the circular dated 16-2-1993. The said selection was made on the basis of interview of all the eligible officers by the Staff Selection Committee as per the Rules and a select list of five persons was prepared and on the basis of the said select list, promotions were made. The said selection was made on the basis of interview of all the eligible officers by the Staff Selection Committee as per the Rules and a select list of five persons was prepared and on the basis of the said select list, promotions were made. The said promotions were challenged by three officers who, though senior, were not promoted, by filing Writ Petitions Nos. 43 and 45 of 1993 in the M.P. High Court. The said writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 24-7-1996 on the view that where rules prescribed promotion on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit", then seniority has to be given due place and merely because a person has better merit, he cannot be promoted over and above the person senior to him unless he lacks in qualification or is otherwise found to be unfit, i.e., there is nothing against him, and that this was not the position in the instant case and that the concept of seniority had been given no weightage in this case. Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs Nos. 150 and 152 of 1996) filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 9-10-1996. The learned Judges on the Division Bench have found that the Bank has given weightage to merit first and second place has been given to seniority and that this shows that the Selection Committee has acted contrary to the principles prescribed under the Rules and that the selections had been made by way of merit-cum- seniority and not by way of seniority-cum-merit as required by the Rules. Civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 17780-81 of 1997 have been filed against the said judgment of the High Court by the promoted officers whose promotion has been quashed by the High Court. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. It is not disputed that the selection was made on the basis of marks assigned on the basis of interview by the Selection Committee and those who secured the highest marks were selected. The selection process adopted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Area Managers/Senior Managers was thus not in consonance with the principle of "seniority-cum-merit" and the promotions were not made in accordance with the Rules. The selection process adopted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Area Managers/Senior Managers was thus not in consonance with the principle of "seniority-cum-merit" and the promotions were not made in accordance with the Rules. Civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 17780-81 of 1997 are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Again the Apex Court in Harigovind Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and Others, considered the difference between the criteria for promotion between "merit-cum-seniority" and "seniority-cum-merit". The Apex Court relied upon the judgment passed in B.V. Sivaiah (supra), and thereafter decided that where the procedure adopted does not provide minimum standard for promotion and only minimum standard for interview, thus, the selection with reference to comparative merit would be contrary to the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". In this reference, paras 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment passed in Harigovind Yadav (supra) are referable : 21........What is surprising is that, in spite of these decisions, the first respondent Bank again adopted the very same procedure contained in the promotion policy of 2-2-1989 and again failed to promote the appellant by assigning him marks of 16(20), 10(10), 3(5), 24(40) and 9(25) and held that he was not eligible for promotion as he did not secure the minimum marks of 10 prescribed for interview. But, admittedly there was no overall minimum and the procedure required assessment of comparative merit. This is not therefore a case of the appellant failing to secure the minimum necessary merit required for promotion but a case where the appellant's entitlement to promotion was sought to be assessed by adopting a procedure which allotted 20 marks for seniority, 40 marks for performance, 15 marks for posting at rural and difficult centers and 25 marks for interview. The Bank has persisted in adopting the merit-cum-seniority procedure in spite of the decisions of this Court in several rounds of litigation referred to above. As the entire promotion procedure adopted by the Bank as per its policy dated 2-2-1989 has stood rejected by the High Court and this Court in Sivaiah as also in the earlier round of litigation of the appellant, the promotion of the third respondent and non-promotion of the appellant by adopting the very same procedure is liable to be interfered with. Interviews can be held and assessment of performance can be made by the bank in connection with promotions. Interviews can be held and assessment of performance can be made by the bank in connection with promotions. But that can be only to assess the minimum necessary merit. But where the procedure adopted does not provide the minimum standard for promotion, but only the minimum standard for interview and does the selection with reference to comparative marks, it is contrary to the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". This aspect of the matter has been completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in this round of litigation. As noticed above, they have proceeded on the basis that the appellant having failed to secure the minimum marks prescribed for interview, was rightly denied promotion, by ignoring the principle laid down by this Court in Sivaiah in regard to seniority-cum-merit. At all events, as the promotion policy adopted by the Bank was held to be illegal in the earlier round of litigation (WP No. 4485 of 1993 dated 13-10-1988), the Bank could not have adopted the same policy to again reject the appellant for promotion. We may also note that the law laid down in Sivaiah was reiterated in Sher Singh vs. Surinder Kumar wherein this Court had occasion to consider a similar question relating to the promotion for the post of clerk to Field Supervisor in the case of another Gramin Bank. This Court held that as the criterion for making promotion from the post of clerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit but the Bank did not follow the criterion seniority-cum-merit but made promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the promotion was vitiated and therefore invalid. 23 We will now deal with para 37 in Sivaiah relied on by the respondents. Para 37 related to Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank where the procedure adopted for promotion was different from the criteria that was adopted by Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank, the first respondent herein. In the case of Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the assessment of minimum necessary merit was by interview. The candidate who secured a minimum of 50 out 100 marks in the interview, was selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. It was thus found to be a case where the minimum standard was prescribed for assessing the merit of the candidates and those who qualified by securing the minimum marks (50%) were promoted strictly as per seniority. The candidate who secured a minimum of 50 out 100 marks in the interview, was selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. It was thus found to be a case where the minimum standard was prescribed for assessing the merit of the candidates and those who qualified by securing the minimum marks (50%) were promoted strictly as per seniority. Thus, it was in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, the observations in para 37 of Sivaiah are of no assistance to the respondents. As we have already noticed, in this case, the procedure is not one of ascertaining the minimum necessary merit and then promoting the candidates with the minimum merit in accordance with seniority, but assessing the comparative merit by drawing up a merit list, the assessment being with reference to marks secured for seniority, performance, posting at rural/difficult places and interview. The fact that the appellant had failed to secure the minimum marks in the interview, is not relevant as the entire procedure adopted by the Bank (of which interview is a part) is found to be vitiated and not in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as referred to hereinabove, have no application in the present case because in the said cases the Apex Court had no occasion to consider the Rules of 1998. The submission so made by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is devoid of substance. In the Rules of 1998 and also in the earlier rules, criteria for promotion only was the "seniority-cum-merit". How the Rule of "seniority-cum-merit" is to be applied it has also been decided by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has held that once the rule of "seniority-cum-merit" is to be applied then it is necessary to apply the minimum necessary cut off marks out of total marks. An assessment of the record supplied by respondent No. 1 does not show that the respondents have ever prescribed the minimum necessary merit/cut off marks out of 100 but they ignored the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and further no minimum merit marks out of 100 have also been prescribed. An assessment of the record supplied by respondent No. 1 does not show that the respondents have ever prescribed the minimum necessary merit/cut off marks out of 100 but they ignored the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and further no minimum merit marks out of 100 have also been prescribed. Merely because the Apex Court was not considering the Rules of 1998 that by itself will not have any effect of upholding the present selection as selection is found to be contrary to the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 further submitted that in the present case the rule of "seniority-cum-merit" has been applied. It has been contended by him that the persons those who have secured higher percentage of marks, their names were re-arranged on the basis of seniority. The said submission is considered. However, it is not understood as to when no minimum merit marks have been prescribed then the persons those who have secured higher percentage of marks and thereafter to re-arrange them on the basis of seniority, then as to how such a procedure can be said to be a proper criteria in consonance to the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". Thus, on the basis of the judgments passed by the Apex Court (supra), the process of selection in the absence of prescribing minimum necessary merit marks and more weightage is given for selection, to the 20 marks for performance appraisal and 20 marks for interview without prescribing any minimum necessary merit marks for the same, then the procedure as such would have the effect of giving go-bye to the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". In the present case also the respondent No. 1 has only stated that total marks prescribed were 100 marks and 40% marks out of 60 were the cut-off marks for the purposes of calling the persons for interview. As it is stated above, there were 60 marks for two written papers of 30 marks each and 20 marks for the performance appraisal and 20 marks for the interview. While preparing the final selection list marks obtained by candidates in the written test have not been taken into account but the same has been taken into account only for the purposes of calling the persons in the interview. No minimum cut off marks out of 100 were ever prescribed. While preparing the final selection list marks obtained by candidates in the written test have not been taken into account but the same has been taken into account only for the purposes of calling the persons in the interview. No minimum cut off marks out of 100 were ever prescribed. The manner in which it has been explained by the respondent No. 1 with regard to promotion and procedure adopted shows that the rule of "merit-cum-seniority" has been applied and not the rule of "seniority-cum-merit". By virtue of statutory rule the criteria applicable was seniority-cum-merit, which has been given go-bye. Under the circumstances, I have to hold that the whole process of selection is vitiated by applying the wrong criteria i.e. merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit. The learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that under the Rules of 1998 it is provided that there shall be no minimum qualifying marks for the interview and on this basis it is argued that no minimum marks can be provided. This submission has no force because the said clause does not prohibit that the marks scored by a candidate in the interview, out of 20 marks, shall not be added in the total 100 marks. After taking into account the total marks obtained, if still a candidate fails to acquire the bench marks which are the minimum necessary merit marks, then he could be Validly excluded from the promotion but the selection is processed without prescribing the bench marks, therefore the course adopted is contrary to principles of "seniority-cum-merit". For the reasons stated hereinabove the present petitions deserve to be allowed. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that in the case of petitioner P.K. Jaggi in W.P. (S) No. 11005/2004 even though he was junior received higher percentage of marks and no senior to him has been promoted, therefore, his case has to be dismissed. The said submission is considered and I am of the view that once the whole selection process is held to be vitiated by applying the wrong criteria i.e. the "merit-cum-seniority" and not applying the correct criteria of "seniority-cum-merit", the petition preferred by the petitioner P.K. Jaggi cannot be dismissed. Under the circumstances, the orders of promotion, which is Annexure P-1 (in W.P. (S) No. 11005/2004) and Annexures P-7 in rest of the petitions, stand quashed. Under the circumstances, the orders of promotion, which is Annexure P-1 (in W.P. (S) No. 11005/2004) and Annexures P-7 in rest of the petitions, stand quashed. The respondents those who have been promoted shall stand reverted to their substantive posts of Middle Management Grade-II. The respondent No. 1 is further directed to prepare a fresh selection list by prescribing the minimum necessary cut off merit marks out of 100 so that the rule of seniority-cum-merit could be made applicable and thereafter may proceed with to prepare a fresh selection list and after prescribing the necessary minimum merit/cut off marks the persons those who secured the minimum merit marks, on the basis of their seniority, they shall be re-arranged and accordingly a fresh order of promotion shall be passed by the respondents. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed with cost of Rs. 1000/- each, which will be paid by the respondent No. 1-, Management to the petitioners. Final Result : Allowed