Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash an order of the second respondent, dated 8. 99, and for a direction, to be issued by this Court, to the respondents to conduct a re-examination for the petitioner, for promotion from the sub staff cadre to the clerical cadre. 3. The petitioner has stated that the proper question paper and the answer sheet had not been issued to him. The petitioner was not given the question paper and answer sheet pertaining to the examination for promotion from sub staff cadre to clerical cadre. In fact, he was given the question paper and answer sheet pertaining to the examination for promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre. Therefore, the examination conducted, on 5. 99, by the third respondent, is illegal and non-est in law. 4. The petitioner has further stated that he had joined in the service of the first respondent Bank as a temporary sub-staff, on 30.78. He was regularised in the post of permanent sub-staff, on 30.83. From the year 1986, the petitioner had been working at the Thiruvarur Branch of the Indian Bank. The petitioner had studied upto 8th standard. According to the settlement, dated 10. 93, concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the first respondent bank and the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Union, the procedure and guidelines for promotion and other matters were agreed upon. The said settlement was circulated by the first respondent as `Promotion Policy Settlement, dated 93. Part III of the settlement, dated 10. 93, deals with promotion of subordinate cadre staff to clerical staff, based on a written test. Since the petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion, he had made an application in the prescribed form for appearing in the written test for promotion from sub-staff Cadre to clerical cadre. The petitioner had received a call letter from the first respondent for his appearance in the written test to be held on 5. 99, at 2. 30 p.m. The centre for the written test allotted to the petitioner was St.Patrick Higher Secondary School, Saradhambal Nagar, Pondicherry. The examination number allotted to the petitioner was 25170007. The petitioner had received a call letter from the first respondent for his appearance in the written test to be held on 5. 99, at 2. 30 p.m. The centre for the written test allotted to the petitioner was St.Patrick Higher Secondary School, Saradhambal Nagar, Pondicherry. The examination number allotted to the petitioner was 25170007. The petitioner had gone to the prescribed venue and he had occupied the seat where his examination No.25170007 had been written, using a chalk-piece. At the commencement of the examination, the petitioner was issued with a computer coded answer sheet. Since the answer sheet provided to the petitioner was not pertaining to the examination he was writing, he had brought it to the notice of the invigilator. However, the invigilator did not take steps to rectify the mistake. The petitioner had also written a letter, dated 5. 99, to the first respondent through the Branch Manager, requesting for conducting a fresh examination for the petitioner. However, the second respondent, by the impugned order, dated 8. 99, had rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the promotion test for sub-staff cadre to clerical cadre was conducted as per the guidelines of the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it has been stated that in terms of the promotion policy statement, dated 10. 93 and 12. 99, the respondent Bank had issued a Circular, dated 23. 99, inviting applications for the written examination from the eligible candidates for promotion from the post of sub-staff cadre to the clerical cadre. The petitioner, who is working as a sub staff at the Thiruvarur Branch of the respondent Bank, had applied for the promotion test and he was issued a Hall-ticket bearing No.25170007, for the test held on 5. 99, at St.Patrick Higher Secondary School, Pondicherry. All the candidates were advised to be present in the venue of the examination half an hour in advance, so that they could locate the concerned examination hall where the examination was being conducted and to occupy their respective seats allotted to them after due verification of the Display Boards, and after making the necessary enquiries. All the candidates were advised to be present in the venue of the examination half an hour in advance, so that they could locate the concerned examination hall where the examination was being conducted and to occupy their respective seats allotted to them after due verification of the Display Boards, and after making the necessary enquiries. The petitioner has further stated that on the same day, another examination was conducted at the same venue for the promotion of the staff of the respondent bank from the clerical cadre to the officers cadre. .6. It has been further stated that at the entrance of the venue, a display board had been placed indicating the hall allotted for the examination and the roll numbers of the candidates allotted to each hall. The name of the examination was also indicated on the display Board, along with the roll numbers and the hall allotted for the said purpose. In the examination hall, the name of the examination and the roll numbers of the candidates were also prominently displayed. For the clerical cadre staff, only one hall was allotted and for the sub staff three different halls had been allotted. In one of the halls, seating arrangements were made for the candidates belonging to both the cadres. 7. It has also been stated that before the commencement of the examination the Chief Test Administrator had informed the candidates about the name of the examination conducted and had requested the candidates to verify the roll numbers in the hall tickets and the roll numbers written on the table to ensure that they were sitting in the right hall and at the right place. However, the petitioner was absent in the hall allotted to him as it is clear from the seating plan-cum-attendance report submitted by the invigilator and the Chief Test Administrator. The submissions that the computer coded answer sheet was not applicable to the clerical cadre and that the petitioner had brought the matter to the notice of the invigilator, immediately, is incorrect. From the report, dated 6. 99, submitted by the invigilator to the Chief Test Administrator, it is seen that there was no objection from the petitioner regarding the question paper and the answer sheet provided to the petitioner. Since all necessary arrangements had been done for the benefit of the candidates who were appearing in the examinations, on 5. From the report, dated 6. 99, submitted by the invigilator to the Chief Test Administrator, it is seen that there was no objection from the petitioner regarding the question paper and the answer sheet provided to the petitioner. Since all necessary arrangements had been done for the benefit of the candidates who were appearing in the examinations, on 5. 99, at the prescribed venue, there is no valid ground for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, dated 8. 99, and for praying for a direction from this Court to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh written examination for the petitioner for promotion from sub staff cadre to the clerical cadre. .8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the examination conducted, on 5. 99, was improper and therefore, the respondents ought to have conducted a fresh examination when the question paper and the answer sheet supplied to the petitioner during the examination held, on 5. 99, were not meant for promotion from the sub staff cadre to clerical cadre, the first respondent Bank, coming under the definition of `State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, ought to have acted in a fair and reasonable manner, when the petitioner had made a complaint with regard to the examination conducted, on 99. By the action of the respondents in giving the petitioner the wrong question paper and the answer sheet, which was meant for promotion from clerical cadre to officers cadre, he was deprived of a valuable opportunity to get his promotion from sub staff cadre to clerical cadre, in terms of the settlements, dated 10. 93 and 12. 99 and in terms of the Circular, dated 299. Since the action of the respondents was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 8. 99, is liable to be set aside and consequently, the respondents had to be directed to conduct a fresh written examination for the petitioner for promotion from sub-staff cadre to clerical Cadre. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the examination conducted by the third respondent, on 5. 99, is fair and proper and it has been conducted in the manner prescribed for conducting such examinations. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the examination conducted by the third respondent, on 5. 99, is fair and proper and it has been conducted in the manner prescribed for conducting such examinations. It is only due to the negligence of the petitioner, he had entered the wrong hall and had taken the examination meant for promotion from clerical cadre to the officers cadre. Sufficient number notices had been displayed at prominent places, for the benefits of the candidates, to go to the correct examination hall meant for them. In spite of such clear instructions being given by the Chief Test Administrator, the petitioner had been sitting in the wrong hall and therefore, he was given the question paper and the answer sheet meant for the promotion of the candidates from the clerical cadre to the officers cadre. In such circumstances, no relief could be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first and second respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 8. 99, rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting a fresh promotion test meant for sub-staff cadre to clerical cadre. .11. It is clear that it is only due to the negligence of the petitioner, he was seated in the examination hall meant for candidates taking the written test for promotion from clerical cadre to the officers cadre. It is also clear that sufficient instructions had been given by the Chief Test Administrator, advising the candidates to verify the information regarding the name of the examination, the roll number in the hall tickets and the roll number written on the table, to ensure that they were sitting in the right hall and at the right place. 12. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief’s sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.