JUDGEMENT CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same order and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Writ petitioners-appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2005 passed in CWJC No. 8287 of 2001 and its analogous cases have preferred this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioners- appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) are Clerk-cum-Cashier and they were candidates for promotion to the post of Officer Grade, Scale-! in the Bhojpur- Rohtas Gramin Bank, whose successor in now Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. 3. Promotion to the post of Officer Grade, Scale-I from the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier is to be effected following the principle of seniority-cum-merit. In order to give effect to the principle aforesaid, respondent- Bank had framed policy which provides that in order to assess minimum merit, a candidate will be judged on 50 marks out of which 30 marks is allocated for performance in the years 1995-96, 1996- 97 and 1997-98. Twenty marks is allocated for interview and cut-off marks fixed for making a person eligible for promotion is 25. However, securing 10 marks out of 20 in the interview is mandatory. 4. Petitioners knew the aforesaid policy and offered their candidature for promotion. Ultimately, when not selected for promotion, they have questioned their non-promotion and promotion of other Cashier-cum- Clerks in the Officer Grade, Scale-I, inter alia on the ground that promotion-policy is illegal. The learned Single Judge did not find anything obnoxious in the promotion policy and further observed that petitioners once have taken the chance and failed, cannot be allowed to question the promotion policy. 5. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the principle followed is merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum- merit and the allocation of marks in the manner aforesaid shows that Bank had followed the principle of merit-cum-seniority. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hargovind Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 145 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:- "It is thus clear that this Court did not accept the promotion policy contained in the circular dated 2.2.1989 as being in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 145 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:- "It is thus clear that this Court did not accept the promotion policy contained in the circular dated 2.2.1989 as being in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. This Court held that the policy which did not prescribe a minimum standard for assessing merit and which promoted candidate on the basis of comparative merit, with reference to total marks obtained by the eligible candidates, followed the merit- cum-seniority principle. The decision in Sivaiah relating to Area/Senior Managers of the first respondent-Bank was followed by the High Court in the case of the appellant, in its judgment dated 13.10.1998 and it was held that the procedure adopted by the first respondent- Bank for promotion of the third respondent and V.P. Singh as per the circular dated 2.2.1989 was contrary to the Rules which required promotions by seniority-cum-merit, and the Bank was directed to redo the promotions by considering the case of the appellant and other eligible candidates by adopting the criteria of seniority-cum-merit." 6 Mr. Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank, however, contends that the policy framed by the Bank for promotion is in conformatory with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. He points out that for assessing the minimum merit, a cut-off marks was fixed and thereafter promotion was effected taking into account the inter se seniority of the candidates. 7. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee and the decision relied on in no way supports his contention. As observed earlier, 30 marks have been allocated for performance of the candidates in the relevant years and 20 marks for the interview. To assess the mimimum merit, cut-off marks was fixed at 25 and securing 10 marks in interview was made necessary. A candidate securing more than 20 marks thus have become eligible for promotion. The promotion is not to be made on the basis of the total marks obtained ignoring the seniority. A person securing 25 marks is to be promoted following the principle of seniority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the principle followed is merit-cum-seniority. 8. Mr. The promotion is not to be made on the basis of the total marks obtained ignoring the seniority. A person securing 25 marks is to be promoted following the principle of seniority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the principle followed is merit-cum-seniority. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, then submits that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ application on the ground that the petitioners having once taken the change cannot be promoted to question the promotion policy. In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others, 1997 (9) SCC 527 . 9. We have held the promotion policy to be in conformity with the principle of seniority-cum-merit and hence this question is rendered academic. However, this submission of Mr. Mukherjee does not commend us. Petitioners have participated in the process of selection keeping their eyes wide open. It is not their case that after their participation in the selection process, the promotion policy has been changed. We are entirely in agreement with the teamed Single Judge that in the facts of the present case, they were not entitled to question the same. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals and they are dismissed accordingly.