JUDGMENT (Oral) Aggarwal, J. -- 1. This appeal filed by Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant Bank’) is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th October 2010 in Writ Petition No.1501/2010 (S), whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 7 was allowed and consequently the written test held by the appellant for promotion of its employees from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OJM I) was quashed on the ground that there was leakage of question paper inasmuch as the written test was held for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh at 10:00 a.m. while the written test was held for the appellant Bank at Gwalior centre at 1:00 p.m. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of respondents No.1 to 7 has directed the appellant Bank to conduct a fresh written test for promotion in terms of the Regional Rural Bank (Officers and Other Employees) Appointment and Promotion Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1998’). 2. Initially 17 persons including respondents No.1 to 7 had filed the writ petition, but later on 10 out of them had withdrawn themselves from the petition and their names were deleted from the array of petitioners vide order passed by the writ Court dated 23rd July 2010. 3. Earlier certain successful candidates, who were finally selected for their promotion on the basis of written test, had challenged the impugned order of the learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal being Writ Appeal No.567/2010 (Prakash Sai Khedkar v. A.K. Chaturvedi), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in limine vide its order dated 18th November 2010. After the dismissal of the appeal of the successful candidates in limine, the appellant Bank has filed the present appeal seeking to challenge the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1501/10 (S) inter alia on the ground that there was no leakage of question paper and that the earlier dismissal of the appeal of the successful candidates in limine does not constitute a binding precedent as the appellant was not heard at that time. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the time of admission of this appeal had placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ruchi Choudhary v. Judges Committee [2006(4) MPLJ 467], and on the strength of this judgment he had argued that as the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that there was leakage of question paper is based on no material on record, the successful candidates cannot be made to suffer the second examination for their promotion. It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that since the earlier Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal of the successful candidates in limine, had not heard the appellant Bank or had issued notice to it, the order of this Court dated 18th November 2010 in Writ AppealNo.567/10 is not binding on the Bank. On these submissions being made by the learned senior counsel before us at the time of admission of the present appeal, we had directed for issuance of notice of the present appeal to the respondents and accordingly, the respondents were duly served with the notice of the present appeal. 4. We have heard Shri D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank, Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7, Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) and also Shri Jitendra Sharma, Advocate, who had appeared on behalf of two successful candidates being appellants in connected appeal being Writ Appeal No.657/10. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the counsels for the parties in the matter. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant Bank had engaged an outside expert agency, viz. the Institution of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) Mumbai for conducting a written test for promotion of its employees from sub-staff to Clerical Cadre (Group B), clerical cadre to Officer Scale I (Group A) and Officer Scale I to Officer Scale II (Group A). The promotions from Clerical Cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OMJ I) are based on seniority-cum-merit as provided under the Rules of 1998. The rules provide for promotion through written test, interview and performance appraisal. The promotions from Clerical Cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OMJ I) are based on seniority-cum-merit as provided under the Rules of 1998. The rules provide for promotion through written test, interview and performance appraisal. The written test was conducted by IBPS, Mumbai for the appellant Bank at six centres in the State of Madhya Pradesh namely, Gwalior, Mandsaur, Chhindwara, Hoshangabad, Mandla and Shahdol at 1:00 p.m. on 14th March 2010. Respondent No.8 i.e. IBPS had also conducted a similar test for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Ambikapur, District Surguja in the State of Chhattisgarh from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on the same day i.e. 14th March 2010. 6. The respondents No.1 to 7, who are the employees of the appellant Bank but are lower down in the seniority list had filed the writ petition in which the impugned order challenged in the present appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge and had challenged the selection process started by the appellant Bank for promotion of its employees from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OJM I) cadre inter alia on the ground that there was leakage of question paper of the written test as the written test was held for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Chhattisgarh at 10:00 a.m. while the written test for the appellant Bank at Gwalior centre was held around 1:00 p.m. The selection process was challenged by them also on the ground that the condition of minimum passing marks of 40% prescribed in the promotion policy of 2009-10 was contrary to the Rules of 1998. However, the said ground taken by them in their writ petition regarding prescription of minimum 40% pass marks was neither pressed by them at the hearing of the writ petition nor it has been pressed before us in the present appeal. 7. However, the said ground taken by them in their writ petition regarding prescription of minimum 40% pass marks was neither pressed by them at the hearing of the writ petition nor it has been pressed before us in the present appeal. 7. The only ground, on which the written test held by the appellant Bank for promotion of its employees from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OJM I) cadre has been quashed by the learned Single Judge, is on account of the alleged leakage of question paper of the written test based upon the fact that the written test was held for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh at 10:00 a.m. while the written test for the appellant Bank was held at Gwalior centre around 1:00 p.m. on the same day. 8. In order to properly appreciate the pleas put forward by the counsels for the parties, we consider it necessary to refer to their pleadings in the writ petition. The material pleadings of respondents No.1 to 7 being the petitioners in the writ petition are contained in paras 5.5 and 5.6 of the petition and the same are as under : “5.5 As per the information available with the petitioners and time schedule fixed by IBPS examination was to be conducted on 14.3.2010 between 10:00 to 11.15 a.m. This was uniform schedule framed by IBPS, reason for which was that single paper was provided, however, the authority at their own and more particularly Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank has directed to conduct the examination by 1:00 to 2:15 p.m. while at Surguja Regional Bank examination was already conducted between 10:00 to 11:15 a.m. Thus, the questions which were to be asked were known to those persons who have already appeared through Surguja Regional Rural Bank through other Regional Rural Bank. Thus, to many persons who were having connection at Surguja or other places, the questions which were to be asked have already been disclosed. This is not fair practice as the person has got undue advantage and the respondents have deliberately and willfully not followed the directions issued by the Prime Agency meant for the purpose of conducting the examination. This has been duly noticed to IBPS vide Annexure P-3 but no heed has been paid. 5.6 Authorities are not ready to consider this major aspect. This has been duly noticed to IBPS vide Annexure P-3 but no heed has been paid. 5.6 Authorities are not ready to consider this major aspect. As proof with regard to examination being conducted at Gwalior between 1:00 to 2:15 p.m. is Annexure P-4 and on oath before this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the examination at Surguja Regional Rural Bank the examinations have been conducted between 10:00 to 11:15 a.m. In such circumstances, the examinations were not at all fair nor sacrosanct and secrecy which is prime feature has already been lost by the conduct of respondents management.” 9. In response to the petition of respondents No.1 to 7, the appellant Bank had filed its detailed return denying all the allegations made therein being purely imaginary based on surmises and conjectures. It was stated that the time for test was fixed by the Bank between 1:00 to 2:15 p.m. looking at the convenience of the employees who had to come from a long distance. The time for test was notified by the appellant Bank to the candidates long back by mentioning it on the admission cards sent to them on 18th February 2010 and the test was held at all the six centres of the Bank simultaneously at the same time. The question papers and the answer sheets were taken back immediately after the examination by the Chief Test Administrator of IBPS, which were sent directly to IBPS in the sealed packets. The reply of the appellant Bank, which is material for our purpose, is contained in paras 5.5 and 5.6 of its return and the same is quoted herein below : “5.5 That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the written test was conduced by IBPS (Institute of Banking Personnel Selection) Mumbai. The date of the written test was fixed with the consent of IBPS. The letter of IBPS Mumbai regarding confirmation of the date of written test annexed here as Annexure R-2. It is not true that there was any time fixed by the IBPS. The test time in the respondent Bank was fixed at 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to suit travel convenience of the candidates who are required to travel long distance to reach the test centres. It is not true that there was any time fixed by the IBPS. The test time in the respondent Bank was fixed at 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to suit travel convenience of the candidates who are required to travel long distance to reach the test centres. The Branch network of the respondent Bank is spread over geographically disbursed in 20 districts of Madhya Pradesh, whereas written test was conducted at six centres only. The test time was initially fixed/scheduled at 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in the respondent Bank and not changed at any time. The time 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the written test was fixed by the respondent Bank for all the 6 test centres at Regional Headquarters in the State of M.P. It is a matter of sheer coincidence that test for respondent Bank and Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank in the State of Chhattisgarh was held on the same day. The respondent Bank was not aware nor it was in their knowledge that test was conducted in Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank of Chhattisgarh State from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Question papers were independently set by the IBPS Mumbai, which is established and reputed professional engaged in conduct of examination of the selection of Banking Personnel. What sort of question paper was supplied was not in the knowledge of the respondent Bank, because it was a matter of separate State. It is also a matter known only to IBPS and none else that question paper for test for promotion from clerical to officer Grade I was common. The petitioner states that the question paper was known to many persons who were having connections at Surguja or other places is not correct because just after the test, question paper and answer sheet were taken back by the Chief Test Administrator (CTA), Control Room Assistant (CRA), invigilators and other staff were not from the staff of the respondent Bank. To ensure secrecy of the written test an Observer from the Sponsor Bank, Central Bank of India, was also appointed. Therefore, it is, absolutely wrong that the respondent Bank has deliberately and wilfully not followed the directions issued by the IBPS Mumbai. Written test was conducted according to the guidelines given by the IBPS Mumbai. To ensure secrecy of the written test an Observer from the Sponsor Bank, Central Bank of India, was also appointed. Therefore, it is, absolutely wrong that the respondent Bank has deliberately and wilfully not followed the directions issued by the IBPS Mumbai. Written test was conducted according to the guidelines given by the IBPS Mumbai. 5.6 That, in the entire State of M.P. in all 6 Regions (Gwalior, Chhindwara, Shahdol, Mandla, Hoshangabad and Ratlam) of the respondent Bank the test was conducted between 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. What happened in the State of Chhattisgarh (Surguja RRB) is not known to the respondent Bank nor the respondent Bank is concerned with it.” 10. The IBPS, an outside agency engaged by the appellant Bank for conducting the written test had also filed a detailed return in response to the notice of the writ petition of respondents No.1 to 7 and has denied the allegations made by respondents No.1 to 7 in their petition. It was submitted by the IBPS in its return that in normal course banks decide the timings for internal promotion examination depending upon the local conditions, the time/distance required by employees to travel to attend the examination from their place of posting. It was stated that the time for written test was not categorically specified in the present case. According to IBPS, since the test papers were sent to both the banks separately, it was not possible for either of the Banks to know the fact of similarity of test papers in English. The material pleadings of IBPS are contained in paras ‘E’ and ‘F’ of its return and the same are quoted hereunder : “E. The respondent No.1, Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank having its Head Office at Chhindwara (M.P.) approached the answering respondent and asked to conduct written examinations for the promotion from clerical cadre to officer Scale I (the subject-matter of this petition). The answering respondent vide letter February 4, 2010 confirmed 14.3.2010 as the date of conduct of the said written examination. The date was fixed with the consent of the respondent No.1. The answering respondent vide letter February 4, 2010 confirmed 14.3.2010 as the date of conduct of the said written examination. The date was fixed with the consent of the respondent No.1. Regarding timing of the examination as per general practice if the examination is held in one session, the timing is 9:30 a.m. If it is in two sessions, the timings are 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. In normal course banks decide the timings for internal promotion examination depending upon the local conditions, the time/distance required by employees to travel to attend the examination from their place of posting etc. In this particular case, the timing was not categorically specified. However, the Test Administration Manuals were prepared by IBPS on the basis of the normal assumptions of commencement time of 9:30 a.m. F. The answering respondent submits that as per understanding and general practice time for test is often fixed at 9:30 a.m. In this particular case the timing was not categorically specified. However, the Test Administration Manuals were prepared by IBPS on the basis of the normal assumption of commencement time of 9:30 a.m. as aforesaid in para E. However, certain guidelines were issued to the respondent No.1 regarding the written examination. As regards test material for clerical to JMGS I promotion -- English language test paper was same for both the banks. In banking knowledge test 19 questions were common. Since the test papers were sent to both the banks separately; it was not possible for either bank to know the fact of similarity in test paper of English. Thus, it made no prejudice to anybody including the petitioners.” 11. In view of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 5th October 2010 has allowed the writ petition of respondents No.1 to 7 and has held that there was leakage of question paper in the written test held by the appellant Bank for promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OJM I) inasmuch as the question paper of English language was same for both these banks and 19 questions of the second test paper (Banking Law, practice and procedure) were also same. The basis of the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge is the fact that the examination in Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhattisgarh was held from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. while the examination for the appellant Bank at its six regional centres in Madhya Pradesh was held between 1:00 to 2:15 p.m. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the impugned judgment are relevant and are extracted below : “7. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the question paper of English language test paper was same in both the Banks and in banking knowledge test 19 questions were common. It is an admitted fact that for both the Banks the examination was conducted for promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Scale I (Group A) and Officer Scale II (Group A). Both the banks have been constituted under the provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and the rules and regulations for promotion are also the same. From the aforesaid admissions, it is clear that the employees who appeared in the test conducted by respondent No.1 Bank had already knowledge about the paper of English and banking knowledge test of Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Both the examinations were conducted by the respondent No.2. Hence, the paper which was used by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of examination was already leaked out at 11:35 a.m. on the same date. The examination was held at 1:00 p.m. at Gwalior centre and the candidates had enough time to know the answers of the question paper because it was already leaked out at 11:35 a.m. 9. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further fact as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even a minute leakage of question paper would be sufficient to affect the written test and it is sufficient to affect the written test and it is sufficient to beseech after a retest. In the present case, it is established that the question paper of English and near about 19 questions of banking knowledge test were already leaked out to the candidates, who appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent No.1. Hence, the examination conducted by the respondent No.1 was not a fair selection and the aforesaid examination could not be held to be a fair selection.” 12. Hence, the examination conducted by the respondent No.1 was not a fair selection and the aforesaid examination could not be held to be a fair selection.” 12. It is apparent from the above that the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion about the leakage of question paper only because the question paper of English language for both the banks was same, whereas 19 out of 35 questions in the second paper of Banking Law, Practice and Procedure were also common and also having regard to the fact that the written test for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Chhattisgarh was held from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and written test for the appellant bank was held between 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. The findings of the learned Single Judge in regard to the alleged leakage of question paper is under challenge before us in the present appeal. 13. The first and the foremost question that arises for our consideration is regarding the maintainability of the present appeal in view of the dismissal of an earlier appeal against the same impugned judgment vide order dated 18th November 2010 of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.567/10, to which one of us (Justice S.N. Aggarwal) was also a party. 14. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 7 has argued that the present writ appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the earlier order of dismissal of the appeal dated 18th November 2010 in Writ Appeal No.567/10 binds the appellant Bank also. According to him, the present appeal is hit by the principle of res judicata. It is submitted that all the pleas and contentions against the impugned judgment taken by the appellant Bank in the present appeal are deemed to have been considered and rejected by the earlier Division Bench while dismissing the appeal vide its order dated 18th November 2010 in Writ Appeal No.567/10. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 is that there cannot be two different judgments for two set of persons, one for the selected candidates whose appeal against the same impugned judgment has already been dismissed and the second for the appellant Bank in the present appeal. 15. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 is that there cannot be two different judgments for two set of persons, one for the selected candidates whose appeal against the same impugned judgment has already been dismissed and the second for the appellant Bank in the present appeal. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Bank has argued that the earlier dismissal of appeal by this Court vide its order dated 18th November, 2010 in Writ Appeal No.567/10 cannot bind the appellant Bank either as judicial precedent or on principle of res judicata. He has argued that the appeal was dismissed by this Court earlier in limine without notice to the opposite parties including the appellant Bank and without arriving at any independent conclusion regarding alleged leakage of question paper. He has contended that the impugned order directing quashing of written test because of alleged leakage of question paper has serious consequences as according to him not only it would entail unnecessary expenditure and time for retest but would also cause a grave prejudice and injustice to successful candidates forced to suffer second examination for no fault on their part. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that this Court may see the record and satisfy itself that there was absolutely no leakage of question paper or hanky panky in the examination warranting its cancellation. He submits that the present appeal is maintainable and cannot be dismissed without dealing with it on merit. 16. We have given our anxious thought to the above rival arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the present appeal. We are sorry we could not persuade ourselves to agree with the submissions in opposition to the present appeal made on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 for reasons to follow hereinafter. 17. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. [2004(4) MPLJ 537], it was held by the Hon’ble apex Court as under : “Any observation made or relief given by a Court, out of sympathy, compassion, sentiments and not based on any discernible principle of law or de hors the merits of the case, cannot be a binding precedent. 17. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. [2004(4) MPLJ 537], it was held by the Hon’ble apex Court as under : “Any observation made or relief given by a Court, out of sympathy, compassion, sentiments and not based on any discernible principle of law or de hors the merits of the case, cannot be a binding precedent. A judgment of a Court contains three parts : (i) finding of facts; (ii) statement of principle of law applicable to the legal problem raised on the facts, based on which the case is decided; and (iii) decision which is based on the finding of fact, applicable principles of law, and in some cases, discretion and the need to mould the relief in a particular manner. Out of the three parts, it is only the second part, that is ratio decidendi or statement of law applied and acted upon by the Court, that is a binding precedent. Neither the findings on facts nor the ultimate decision, that is, the relief given or the manner adopted to dispose of the case, is a precedent.” 18. In A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [ (2001)3 SCC 537 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar question whether its earlier decision binds the Court. The apex Court observed that where no consideration was given to the question, the decision cannot be said to be binding and precedents sub silentio and without arguments are of no moment. 19. In Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India [ AIR 1979 SC 1328 ], it was held by the Hon’ble apex Court as under : “If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was no substance in the petition at all, but in the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed under Article 32.” 20. In Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. The Government of Madras [ (1968)2 SCR 740 ], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a petition is dismissed in limine but with a speaking order to indicate that the petition was dismissed on merits, the absence of notice to other side by itself would not be sufficient to negative the plea of res judicata in a subsequent petition in respect of the same cause of action. 21. We have examined the objection to the maintainability of the present appeal taken by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 on the yardstick of law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. A perusal of the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 18th November 2010 in Writ Appeal No.567/10 (Prakash Sai Khedkar v. A.K. Chaturvedi), to which one of us (Justice S.N. Aggarwal) was also a party, whereby the appeal filed by some of the selected candidates against the same impugned judgment was dismissed in limine, would show that the appeal was dismissed without any notice to the appellant bank or without taking into account any of the pleas or contentions which the appellant bank seeks to urge in the present appeal. The earlier appeal preferred by some of the selected candidates was dismissed in limine without arriving at any independent conclusion regarding alleged leakage of question paper on account of which the written test held by the appellant bank for promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I (OJM-I) has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. It may be noted that the earlier Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal in limine did not give any finding of facts based on any evidence one way or the other and even principles of law applicable to the facts of the case were not discussed in its order. In our opinion, the earlier dismissal of appeal of the selected candidates by this Court in limine is in fact a dismissal by a non-speaking order and cannot be used in the present appeal against the appellant Bank either as a binding precedent or on the principle of res judicata. In our opinion, the earlier dismissal of appeal of the selected candidates by this Court in limine is in fact a dismissal by a non-speaking order and cannot be used in the present appeal against the appellant Bank either as a binding precedent or on the principle of res judicata. We do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the earlier dismissal of the appeal against the same order by the earlier Division Bench, to which one of us (Justice S.N. Aggarwal) was a party. We are, therefore, of the view that the present appeal is maintainable and needs to be considered on merits. 22. The next question that calls for our determination is whether the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the impuged judgment that there was leakage of question paper is legally sustainable on the basis of material available on record. In order to satisfy ourselves about the same we have called for the original record of the written test from the recruitment agency, respondent No.8 herein. We have carefully perused the record of the written test produced before us by respondent No.8 and have given our serious thought to the allegation of respondents No.1 to 7 that there was leakage of question paper because the written test for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhattisgarh was held at Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh at 10:00 a.m. while for the appellant Bank it was held in Madhya Pradesh on the same day at 1:00 p.m. We have taken into account that the question paper of English language was same for both the Banks whereas 19 out of 35 questions were common in the second paper of Banking Law, Practice and Procedure. 23. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 has argued that there could be no better evidence to prove the leakage of question paper then to show that the written test for the two Banks was held at different times on the same day in which one question paper of English was same for both the Banks. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 is that the seal of the packet containing the question paper of English meant for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhattisgarh was opened at 10:00 a.m. and, therefore, according to him, there was every possibility of the question paper being leaked as the same question paper of English language was given to the candidates of appellant Bank in Madhya Pradesh on the same day at 1:00 p.m. It is contended by Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 that the appellant Bank deliberately changed the time of the written test from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. contrary to the instructions regarding timing of the test contained in the Test Administrators Manual. It is submitted that the information technology has advanced so much that the question paper that was given at 10:00 a.m. at Chhattisgarh could have been easily passed over via electronic media from Chhattisgarh to the candidates in the State of Madhya Pradesh. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7, many of the candidates who had appeared for the written test in the State of Madhya Pradesh had an edge over the other candidates including respondents No.1 to 7. He has contended that the learned Single Judge was justified in his conclusion that the written test held by the appellant Bank was not fair and transparent. The learned counsel submits that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and has prayed for the dismissal of this appeal. 24. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has argued that respondents No.1 to 7 have not placed any prima facie material on record to show that the question paper or even a part of it was communicated by anybody from Chhattisgarh to any candidate of the appellant Bank at Gwalior or at any other centre. It is submitted that there is no whisper in the writ petition of respondents No.1 to 7 that any candidate taking test at Surguja had informed any candidate of the question or questions at Gwalior or any other centre by any mode of communication, i.e., SMS, e-mail, mobile, landline etc. It is submitted that there is no whisper in the writ petition of respondents No.1 to 7 that any candidate taking test at Surguja had informed any candidate of the question or questions at Gwalior or any other centre by any mode of communication, i.e., SMS, e-mail, mobile, landline etc. There is only a vague complaint by respondent No.1 A.K. Chaturvedi as Regional Secretary of the Workers Organisation that most of the questions were passed on by the employees of Surguja Bank to the candidates of the appellant Bank who took the written test at Gwalior. It is also not mentioned by respondents No.1 to 7 in their petition that the candidates of the appellant Bank who took the test at Gwalior centre had any prior knowledge of the question paper of the test that was given to the candidates of Surguja Bank at Chhattisgarh. 25. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has further argued that the written test held by the appellant Bank for promotion of its employees from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board v. Shyam Kumar [ (2010)6 SCC 614 ], as according to him the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ruchi Choudhary v. Judges Committee [2006(4) MPLJ 467], and on the strength of this judgment, he has argued that the successful candidates cannot be made to suffer a second examination only on the vague complaint of respondents No.1 to 7 that the question paper had leaked and secrecy was violated. 26. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the recuitment agency who is respondent No.8 herein has supported the arguments advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank. He has re-affirmed on the basis of record that there was no leakage of question paper in the written test held by the appellant Bank for promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I on 14th March, 2010. He has re-affirmed on the basis of record that there was no leakage of question paper in the written test held by the appellant Bank for promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I on 14th March, 2010. He has produced the original record of the written test held on 14th March, 2010 for both the Banks, i.e., for Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank and also for the appellant Bank. 27. We have carefully scanned and analysed the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties in regard to the alleged leakage of question paper in the light of the record of the written test produced before us. 28. There were 112 posts available in the appellant Bank for promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I. As per Rules of 1998, the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. The seniority was as per the date of appointment of the candidate in the feeder cadre and was of prime importance. The Rules of 1998 provide for evaluation of merit of a candidate for the purpose of promotion on the basis of written test, interview and performance appraisal. The written test was comprised of two papers of 35 marks each; one of English and the second of Banking Law, Practice and Procedure. Both these question papers were to have 35 objective questions of one mark each. 20 marks were earmarked for interview and 10 marks for performance appraisal. The performance appraisal was to be on the basis of the annual reports of the candidates for the last five preceding years. The Rules provide that a candidate in order to qualify the criteria of merit was required to get minimum of 40% marks for general category separately in the written test, interview and performance appraisal report and 35% marks in case of SC and ST category candidates. 29. A total of 464 candidates were in the eligibility zone for taking the written test for their promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I. However, as per record of written test produced before us, only 451 candidates had appeared in the written test held at 1:00 p.m. on 14th March, 2010 at six centres, i.e., Mandsaur, Shahdol, Hoshangabad, Gwalior, Mandla and Chhindwara. Out of these 451 candidates who took the written test, only 224 had qualified the test by obtaining the requisite qualifying marks and they were called for interview by the appellant Bank scheduled from 27th August, 2010 to 30th August, 2010. After interview and assessment of performance appraisal report, 106 candidates qualified for promotion, 82 were in general category, 16 in SC category and 8 in ST category. The selection in respect of 6 persons under general category is shown to have been kept in a sealed cover on account of pendency of departmental proceedings against them. The final select list was placed before the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank in its meeting held on 21st September, 2010 and it was approved. The final select list of the candidates was published by the appellant Bank on 23rd September, 2010. However, their promotion could not come in place because of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th October, 2010 in Writ Petition No.1501/10 whereby the written test held on 14th March, 2010 has been quashed and directions have been given to the appellant Bank to hold a fresh test for evaluating the merit of the candidates. 30. The question that it staring at us is whether the candidates who had taken the written test held by the appellant Bank for their promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I and who have been finally selected by the competent authority for their promotion, can they be denied promotion merely on a bald allegation of respondents No.1 to 7 that the question paper had leaked because examination for Sarguja Bank was held from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and for appellant Bank between 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. 31. Prior to filing of the writ petition by respondents No.1 to 7, a complaint about leakage of question paper was also received by respondent No.8 (IBPS) and the said complaint was immediately forwarded by the respondent No.8 to the appellant Bank vide its letter dated 19th March, 2010, extracted herein below : “Dr. Prior to filing of the writ petition by respondents No.1 to 7, a complaint about leakage of question paper was also received by respondent No.8 (IBPS) and the said complaint was immediately forwarded by the respondent No.8 to the appellant Bank vide its letter dated 19th March, 2010, extracted herein below : “Dr. V.V. Gavraskar March 19, 2010 Professor and Head Client Relations Division Fax No.07162-242112 Confidential March 19, 2010 By Courier SATPURA/PS/8997/PC/8998/PO/8999 Shri B.N. Singal Chairman Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank Head Office 800/19, South Civil Line Chhindwara (M.P.) 480 001 Dear Sir, Sub : Written Examination for Promotion from : (i) Sub-Staff to Clerical Cadre (Group B) (ii) Clerical Cadre to Officer Scale I (Group A) (iii) Officer Scale I to Officer Scale II (Group A) held on 14.3.2010. 1. We have received two e-mails one from Mr. Sanjay and the other from Mr. Ayush Sharma alleging that the examination conducted for Promotion in Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank was unfair. Both the complainants have not mailed the complaint from their personal id, thereby leading to believe that their names are fictitious. This gist of the allegation in as follows : (i) the question papers of Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank and of Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank were the same. (ii) the time of conduct of Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank was as stipulated by IBPS i.e. 9:30 a.m. whereas that for Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank there was a deliberate violation and the time of actual conduct was 12:30 p.m. (iii) the gap led to paper leakage i.e. transmission of questions from SKGB candidates to SNKGB candidates. 2. Subsequently we have also received complaint purported to be from the Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank Karmachari Association (M.P.) in Hindi containing the same allegation. 3. In this context we request you to inform us whether the allegation about shifting of time from 9:30 a.m. as stipulated in the CTA and Invigilators Manual provided by IBPS to 12:30 p.m. is true and if so the reasons there for. A copy of both the complaints in this regard are enclosed for your information and further necessary action. Looking forward to your response, With regards, Yours faithfully V.V. Gavraskar Encl : As above.” 32. A copy of both the complaints in this regard are enclosed for your information and further necessary action. Looking forward to your response, With regards, Yours faithfully V.V. Gavraskar Encl : As above.” 32. The appellant Bank gave a prompt reply to the aforementioned letter of respondent No.8 dated 19th March, 2010 vide reply dated 25th March, 2010 (at page 286 of the written submissions of respondents No.1 to 7) and the same is also extracted herein below : “âÌÂéǸ¸Uæ Ù×üÎæ ÿæð˜æèØ »ýæ×è‡æ Õñ¢´•¤ Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank Head Office 800/19, South Civil Line, Chhindwara (M.P.) 480 001 (�ææÚUÌ âÚU•¤æÚU, ×.Âý. àææâÙ (‚ߢ âð¢´ÅþþUÜ Õñ¢´•¤ •¤æ â¢Øé€Ì ©U•ýý¤×) ¥ŠØÿæ •¤ÿæÑ ®|v{w-wyyw~x, ×ãUæÂýÕ¢Šæ•¤ •¤ÿæÑ ®|v{w-wyw{~®, wyxz{® Èñ¤€â ®|v{w-wywvvw HO/HRD/02/2009-10/46 (cn. Sec.)/1785 Date : 25.3.2010 Director Confidential Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, IBPS House, Near Thakur Polytechnic 90, DP Road, Kandiwali (E) Mumbai 400 101 Dear Sir, Sub : Written Examination for Promotion from : (i) Sub-Staff to Clerical Cadre (Group B) (ii) Clerical Cadre to Officer Scale I (Gwalior A) (iii) Officer Scale I to Officer Scale II (Group A) held on 14.3.2010 Ref : Your confidential letter No. Satpura/PS/8997/PO/8999-11471 dated 19.3.2010. We acknowledge receipt of your letter No. Satpura/PS/8997/PC 8998/PO/8999-11471 dated 19th March, 2010 today i.e. 23rd March, 2010 in captioned matter. Before we respond to the allegations made, we wish to place the facts in the matter in chronological order hereunder : We approached IBPS vide your letter dated 1.1.2010 for conduct of promotional test for different cadres of employees (approximately 945) in our Bank. IBPS responded vide letter dated 13th January, 2010 bearing No.9071 giving us consent to associate with our Bank for promotion exercises and advising us material requirements for conduct of the test and enclosing therewith the documents in structure of Examination, IBPS charges for the project, Guidelines Scheme of generating 8 digit roll Nos., project sheets (which were to be returned to IBPS duly filled in), information Handout (one for each level). Subsequently we approached IBPS vide our letter No.1495 dated 30.1.2010 proposing to hold test for Officer Scale I to Officer Scale II on 7th March and Messenger to Clerical and Clerical to Officer I test on 14th March, 2010 giving number of probable candidates in each category and proposing visit of our Bank. Officials to IBPS on 2nd February, 2010 for delivery of the background papers and discussions in the matter. Officials to IBPS on 2nd February, 2010 for delivery of the background papers and discussions in the matter. Accordingly our General Manager HRD and Senior Manager HRD visited IBPS office on 2nd February, 2010 handed over the background papers and held deliberations in the matter. Going by suggestions made during deliberations and the deliberation, we decided : To hold the written test at our 6 Regional head quarters namely Gwalior, Mandsaur, Chhindwara, Hoshangabad, Mandla and Shahdol as against our initial plan of holding the examination at one centre only i.e. Bhopal. Hold test for all cadres on one date i.e. 14th March, 2010 as against our proposal for two days. Test was scheduled at 12:30 - 1:00 p.m. to suit convenience of the candidates, many of whom were required to travel long distances to reach the test centre. IBPS vide their letter No. 9730 dated 2nd February, 2010, confirmed 14th March, 2010 as the date for conduct of captioned examinations. We vide our letter No.1583 for 6th February, 2010 advised our consent to IBPS to hold the examination at 6 Regional Headquarters and conveyed the name, addresses and contact details of our Regional Managers who were nominated and designed to act as Local Bank Officer (LBO), IBPS was also requested to send us the instruction manual for LBOs, CTAs, CBOs and Invigilators for our own reference and further instructions. Vide our letter dated 8th February, 2010, the Regional Managers were advised to make arrangements for the test centres and provide complete details to us by 18th February, 2010. They were also furnished IBPS instructions for LBOs and directed to go through the guidelines and ensure strict compliance. Admit cards dated 18th February, 2010 for all the eligible candidates were sent to Regional Officers for onward delivery under acknowledgment through respective Branches/Ros. IBPS was approached vide our letter No.1623 dated 18.2.2010 to provide study material for promotional test. IBPS vide their letter No.10418 dated 22.2.2010 confirmed dispatch of study material through courier for various levels of promotions. The test material including instructions for CTA, contained in sealed packets to be handed over to CTAs,l was received by LBOs from 9th March, 2010 onwards till 12th March, 2010. IBPS vide their letter No.10418 dated 22.2.2010 confirmed dispatch of study material through courier for various levels of promotions. The test material including instructions for CTA, contained in sealed packets to be handed over to CTAs,l was received by LBOs from 9th March, 2010 onwards till 12th March, 2010. On 11th March, 2010 or so it was for the first time brought to our information through LBO by the CTA that as per IBPS printed instructions manual sent to CTAs, the test time is 9:30/10:00 a.m. The time of 9:30/10:00 a.m. contained in CTAs instruction was considered to be standard one and going by the deliberations held at IBPS end on 2.2.2010, the CTAs were clarified that the Bank had discretion in that regard and they are to go by the Bank’s schedule i.e. 12:30/1:00 p.m. Accordingly, the test was held at 12:30/1:00 p.m. on 14.3.2010 for all levels. Security and all other arrangements were made accordingly and the services of more than 65 persons as CTAs, CRAs, Invigilators, Bell Boys etc. were engaged to ensure smooth conduct of the test. Besides, we availed services of one Senior Manager from sponsor Bank to act as an external observer at each of the centres. We also deputed General Manager from Head Office to Shahdol and Hoshangabad centres to ensure conduct of the examination in a transparent and fair manner. All the six Senior Manager from the sponsor Bank who acted as external observer, had confirmed to us in writing that the test has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner. There has been no report of malpractice. Now our pointwise comments on allegations made in the complaint are as under : (i) No comments, as the question papers were set by IBPS. We had furnished background papers including policies of our Bank as required by IBPS. Both the question papers may necessarily not be the same as policies of Surguja RRB may be different than ours. (ii) The allegation is baseless and denied. We were unaware of Sarguja test time and/or date. Going by the deliberations held at IBPS on 2.2.2010 the test in our Bank was scheduled at 12:30.1:00 p.m. to suit convenience of the candidates, many of whom were required to travel long distances to reach the test centre. (ii) The allegation is baseless and denied. We were unaware of Sarguja test time and/or date. Going by the deliberations held at IBPS on 2.2.2010 the test in our Bank was scheduled at 12:30.1:00 p.m. to suit convenience of the candidates, many of whom were required to travel long distances to reach the test centre. The test was held at 12:30/1:00 p.m. as per original schedule and there was no change in test timings at our end.The test time of 12:30/1:00 p.m. is even mentioned in the Admit Card dated 18.2.2010 issued to all the eligible candidates. Specimen of the Admit Card is enclosed herewith for your reference and record. Neither IBPS advised us the test time in any of its communication nor we were required to inform IBPS the time of our test at any stage or at any point of time. Test time of 9:30/10:00 a.m. mentioned in IBPS instructions to CTAs came to our information for the first time on 11th March, 2010 only and going by the deliberations held at IBPS end on 2.2.2010, we suitably clarified to the CTAs. Had there been no deliberations at IBPS on 2.2.2010 on timing of the test, we would have approached IBPS on 11th March, 2010 when test timing of 9:30/10:00 a.m. in CTAs instructions first came to our information or otherwise enquired/clarified/confirmed test time with IBPS during course of making the test arrangement. There were possibilities of our seeking clarification or confirmation about test timing with IBPS, had CTA instructions (where in test time is scheduled to be 9:30/10:00 a.m.) been provided to us in response to our letter dated 6.2.2010. (iii) In our view the possibilities of paper leakage i.e. transmission of questions of material significance due to time gap are remote. While we have placed the facts in the matter here-in-above and furnished our comments on allegations made in the complaint, it may be unfair to construe that the test time 9:30/10:00 a.m. mentioned in CTA and Invigilation manual was meant for the Bank to make the test arrangements. More so, when IBPS test time information came to Bank knowledge for the first time on 11th March, 2010 through the CTAs, for the test to be held on 14.3.2010, and not from IBPS in response to Banks’ letter dated 6.2.2010 or otherwise. More so, when IBPS test time information came to Bank knowledge for the first time on 11th March, 2010 through the CTAs, for the test to be held on 14.3.2010, and not from IBPS in response to Banks’ letter dated 6.2.2010 or otherwise. The allegations are baseless, seem to have been made with ulterior motives and are denied. We shall be glad to furnish any other information or clarification which you may require in the matter. With regards, Yours faithfully (B.K. Singhal) Chairman.” 33. A perusal of the above correspondence between respondent No.8 and the appellant Bank would show that the IBPS, an agency engaged by the appellant Bank for conduct of written test had not fixed the time of 9:30 a.m. for test as alleged by respondents No.1 to7 in their pleadings in the writ petition. The correspondence between them further shows that the appellant Bank had fixed the time of written test from 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. much before the date of examination in consultation with the IBPS. The time for the test fixed by the appellant Bank was mentioned on the roll numbers/admit cards sent to the candidates on 18th February, 2010 about two months prior to the date on which the written test was actually held. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 that the appellant Bank had changed the time of the written test from 9:30 a.m./10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. contrary to the instructions contained in the Test Administrators Manual does not find support from the record. 34. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition, it may be seen that the respondents No.1 to 7 have not disclosed the name of any person who gave information about similarity of question paper and the name of the person who received such information or the mode of communication. Even there is no pleading in this regard as to how it was known that the question paper of both the examinations are same. It is apparent from record that even though Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhattisgarh and the appellant Bank are both Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, but they are separate authorities and have no concern with each other. Record further shows that neither Surguja Bank nor appellant Bank knew about conduct of examination on the same day by their counterpart. Record further shows that neither Surguja Bank nor appellant Bank knew about conduct of examination on the same day by their counterpart. The fact that the written test was conducted by respondent No.8 both for Surguja Bank and also for appellant Bank on the same day was a sheer coincidence. It cannot be said that there was any leakage of question paper merely because the written test for promotion was held for both the Banks on the same day but at different times. We have satisfied ourselves from the record of written test produced before us that there was no leakage of question paper and in this regard we are fortified in our view by the paper wise and centre wise analysis of the result of the candidates. The paper wise and centre wise analysis of the result of the candidates who had taken the written test for their promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I is as under : “Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank Cadre : Clerical to Officer Scale I Only one Test (English) was the SAME for both the Banks Sr. Centre No. of Test English Test II Highest No. candidates (Banking Score appeared Law) Mean SD Mean SD Test I Test II 1. Chhindwara 89 14.22 7.16 18.81 5.70 34 30 2. Hoshangabad 125 14.35 7.05 20.07 5.96 34 33 3. Mandala 58 13.44 6.44 18.47 5.89 33 30 4. Shahdol 51 14.53 6.93 19.73 4.97 30 29 5. Gwalior 77 17.01 6.81 22.79 5.26 31 33 6. Mandsaur 51 15.65 6.60 22.80 5.32 33 31 35. The comparative performance of the candidates in the written test held by the Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank and the appellant Bank was as under : “Comparative Statement of Candidates performance in Promotion Examination of Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Satpura Narmada Gramin Bank Cadre : Clerical to Officer Scale I Only one Test (English was the SAME) for both the Banks. Name of Appeared Test I Test II Highest Bank No. (English) (Banking Score 35 Q Practice and Law) 35 Q. Mean SD Mean SD Test I Test II Surguja 91 12.75 6.88 20.65 5.60 32 31 Kshetriya Gramin Bank Satpura 451 14.83 6.98 20.36 5.84 34 33 Narmada Gramin Bank +2.08 -0.29 Increase in Decrease in Mean over Mean over SKGB SKGB. * Increase of two marks in Highest Score obtained in the test which was the same as also increase of two marks in Highest Score in the test that was different.” 36. We have found from the record of the written test that the result of the English paper was 53% whereas the result of the paper of Banking Law was 91%. Admittedly, the paper of English was the same in both the Banks and only 19 our of 35 questions in the paper of Banking Law were common. In case, there was any leakage of paper as alleged by respondents No.1 to 7, then in that event the result of English paper should have been 100% instead of 53% as with alleged leakage of only 19 out of 35 questions in the paper of Banking Law the result was 91%. Thus, we do not found any substance in the allegation of respondents No.1 to 7 that there was leakage of question paper. 37. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the entire selection procedure followed by the appellant Bank for promotion was totally fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The record shows that the candidate who got the 1st rank in the written test was placed at Serial No.45 in the final list for promotion and only 6 out of first 25 candidates in merit in the written test could finally make it for their promotion in the final list as seniority was the prime criteria for promotion under the rules. None of those candidates who were more meritorious in the written test but lower down in the seniority list had any grievance against the conduct of examination held by the appellant Bank on 14th March, 2010. 38. As per record, respondents No.1 to 7 were much lower in the seniority than those who were finally selected for promotion applying the criteria of seniority-cum-merit laid down in the Rules of 1998. Their seniority position in the seniority list was as under : “1. A.K. Chaturvedi 379 2. Sandeep Rastogi 387 3. Dinesh Kumar Bansale 389 4. Amit Bhargava 401 5. Sanjay Jha 403 6. Amit Prasoon Saxena 404 7. K.S. Kushwaha 254” 39. The record reveals that the last person who was selected on the basis of seniority-cum-merit criteria is one Kali Charan Sharma, placed at Serial No.238 of the seniority list. A.K. Chaturvedi 379 2. Sandeep Rastogi 387 3. Dinesh Kumar Bansale 389 4. Amit Bhargava 401 5. Sanjay Jha 403 6. Amit Prasoon Saxena 404 7. K.S. Kushwaha 254” 39. The record reveals that the last person who was selected on the basis of seniority-cum-merit criteria is one Kali Charan Sharma, placed at Serial No.238 of the seniority list. It seems that respondents No.1 to 7 who were much below in their seniority than the last selected candidate had filed the writ petition to challenge the written test presumably as they wanted to deprive the candidates above them in seniority from promotion till the time they also become entitled for promotion on the basis of their seniority on arising of vacancies in future. The law is well settled that the Courts in exercise of their powers of judicial review over the administrative action should not interfere in administrative decisions unless they are so unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory as to shock the prudent human conscious. When we look at the record, we do not find any fault in the selection procedure followed by the appellant Bank for promotion of its employees from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I. 40. In our opinion, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board v. Shyam Kumar, reported as (2010)6 SCC 614 , is/was wholly misplaced. This judgment has absolutely no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Railway Recruitment Board’s case, applications were invited by the Railway vide notification dated 13.6.2003 for filling up of Group D posts in the South Central Railway Zone, Sikandarabad. A total of 10,02,909 applications were received when advertisement was issued by the Board, out of which 5,86,955 were found to be eligible and call letters were sent to them for appearing in the written test held at various centres. 3,22,224 candidates appeared for the written test, out of which, 2,690 were selected. After the conduct of the examination, complaints were received by the Board from various quarters regarding large scale irregularities, i.e. mass copying and impersonation etc. for which an enquiry was got done by the Board from the Vigilance and also from CBI. The allegations of irregularities in the examination including complaint of mass copying, impersonation etc. After the conduct of the examination, complaints were received by the Board from various quarters regarding large scale irregularities, i.e. mass copying and impersonation etc. for which an enquiry was got done by the Board from the Vigilance and also from CBI. The allegations of irregularities in the examination including complaint of mass copying, impersonation etc. were found true by the Vigilance and also by the CBI. Confronted with the same, the Board had three alternatives before it namely (i) to cancel the entire written test and conduct a fresh written test by inviting applications afresh; (ii) to conduct retest for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test and (iii) to go ahead with the first written test. The Board went for the second alternative and decided to conduct retest only for those 2690 candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test. This decision of the Board was challenged by certain candidates in the writ petition filed before the High Court. The High Court quashed the decision of the Board and directed it to go by the third alternative, i.e., to go by the first written test confining the investigation only to 62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations of impersonation. The judgment of the High Court was challenged by the Railway Recruitment Board in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court who upon examination of various pros and cons of the case by applying the Wednesbury rule of unreasonableness and also the doctrine of proportionality held that the decision taken by the Board to conduct retest only for those 2690 candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test was absolutely justified and did not require any interference by the High Court. 41. It may be seen that in the Railway Recruitment Board’s case (supra), there was a vigilance enquiry and also a report by the CBI regarding irregularities in the examination whereas in the present case, there is no report either by Vigilance or by CBI or even by IBPS regarding the leakage of question paper alleged by respondents No.1 to 7. It may be seen that in the Railway Recruitment Board’s case (supra), there was a vigilance enquiry and also a report by the CBI regarding irregularities in the examination whereas in the present case, there is no report either by Vigilance or by CBI or even by IBPS regarding the leakage of question paper alleged by respondents No.1 to 7. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Railway Recruitment Board’s case (supra), has laid down that minute leakage of question paper is sufficient to besmirch the written test and to go for a retest so as to achieve the ultimate objective of fair selection, however, this principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the said case has hardly any application to the facts of the present case as there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was any leakage of question paper as alleged by respondents No.1 to 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is extremely difficult for us to sustain the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that there was leakage of question paper on account of which the examination held by the appellant Bank for promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade Scale I has been quashed. 42. Besides our independent finding that there was no leakage of question paper, it may also be noted that a similar writ petition seeking to challenge the same written test filed by certain candidates at the Main Seat of the High Court at Jabalpur [Writ Petition No.6816/10 titled Rajnish Gaur v. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank] has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Menon vide his order dated 24th November, 2010. It seems that the Main Seat at Jabalpur also did not find any merit in the challenge to the written test on the ground of alleged leakage of question paper. Furthermore, it shall also be significant to mention that the Sarguja Bank at Chhattisgarh as well as the appellant Bank had both conducted the written test also for promotion of its employees from sub-staff to clerical cadre (Group B) on the same day and time along with written test held for promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade I (Group A). In the written test held by both the Banks for promotion from sub-staff to clerical cadre, the question paper given to the candidates of both the Banks were same but the said written test has not been challenged by any one and this strengthen our belief that respondents No.1 to 7 had filed the writ petition to challenge the written test of promotion from clerical cadre to Officer Junior Management Grade I (Group A) only with an intention to stall the promotion of the successful candidates who were admittedly much senior in seniority to them. 43. We are of the view that the candidates who have finally made for their promotion after going through the stringent selection procedure laid down for promotion in the Rules of 1998, cannot be denied promotion merely on bald allegation by a fraction of candidates with versted interest that there was leakage of question paper. Every candidate who qualifies the written examination after thorough preparation spreads over a couple of months and who also fulfils other criteria for promotion has a legitimate expectation for his promotion. He cannot be denied promotion at the behest of persons with vested interest. The candidates whose names appear in the final promotion list published by the appellant Bank on 23rd September, 2010 are held entitled for their promotion with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 23rd September, 2010. They shall be entitled to all the benefits of the promotional post from the date of their deemed promotion. 44. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1501/10 is set aside. This appeal is allowed. The appellant Bank is permitted to go ahead with the promotion of the candidates as per its list published on 23rd September, 2010. The parties are left to bear their own costs. .............