Judgment :- A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2) Rule. Counsel for the concerned Respondents waive service for the respective Respondents. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3) Briefly stated, this Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner No. 1 claiming to be registered Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act and affiliated to Writ Petitioner No. 2 Association, for issuing writ, directing the Respondents to strictly adhere to the policy of recruitment and promotion in the employment of the Respondent Bank, by issuance of public notice, intimation to Public Employment Exchange and by holding competitive examinations and interviews amongst suitable candidates and to abide by Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 dated 5th December, 2011; Memorandum of Settlement dated 19th February, 2003 and the policy disclosed in Circular dated 14th February, 2012. The Petitioners have further prayed for setting aside the Circular dated 31st May, 2011 and all actions taken by the Respondent Bank pursuant thereto and to restrain from acting upon the tentative action plan for the recruitment envisaged for the period 2012-2013, as can be discerned from the statistics presented in the Business Development Meeting with unions on 23rd February, 2012. According to the Petitioners, the impugned action of Respondent Bank is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in particular it impinges upon the right of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment. For, the Respondent Bank has adopted a pick and choose policy to show undue favouritism and bias in respect of certain candidates, who are offered opportunity of employment under the guise of direct recruitment through campus interviews, resulting into large scale malpractices and loss of competitiveness amongst the deserving candidates suitable for employment. Further, the Respondent Bank has acted in a manner which may result in closure of the Public Employment Exchanges which have been established for providing equal opportunity to all eligible and suitable candidates in relation to public employment with the State and instrumentalities of the State such as the Respondent Bank. 4) The Petitioners assert that the Respondent Bank, in violation of Circular dated 15th December, 2011, issued by the Respondent No. 2 Union of India, providing for guidelines for promotion in public sector Banks, which included the Respondent No. 1 Bank, was resorting to direct recruitment through campus interviews of the candidates concerned. 4) The Petitioners assert that the Respondent Bank, in violation of Circular dated 15th December, 2011, issued by the Respondent No. 2 Union of India, providing for guidelines for promotion in public sector Banks, which included the Respondent No. 1 Bank, was resorting to direct recruitment through campus interviews of the candidates concerned. Besides, the selection method resorted to by Respondent Bank was not only arbitrary and discriminatory but also prone to malpractices and pick and choose of candidates in the guise of campus recruitment through selected avenues. In that, the Respondent Bank has recruited 6 officers in Scale – I, 101 officers in Scale – II and 7 officers in Scale – III between 1st April, 2011 to 23rd February, 2012 (totaling 114 officers) and was in the process of going ahead with the same method of recruitment for another 100 officers in various scales to be appointed in the Respondent Bank. This is in violation of the minutes of the Business Development Meeting held with unions on 23rd February, 2012. The Petitioners apprehend that the candidates who have been selected through campus recruitment, initially on contract basis, would be absorbed and/or promoted in Scale – II or Scale – III by overlooking seniority and entitlement of the members of the Petitioner union and other similarly placed employees of the Respondent Bank. That would infringe the rule of promotion applicable to existing permanent officers in service in Scale – I to Scale – III; which mandates that the eligibility for consideration must be reckoned amongst others, on the basis of length of service in officer cadre and completion of rural/semi urban stint for a particular period. That will be completely ignored in the case of candidates appointed through campus interviews and contrary to the policy of the Respondent Bank dated 19th February, 2003, as disclosed in the Circular dated 27th February, 2003, wherein, limited concession has been made only to the extent of 25% of the total vacancies of officers in Scale – I with a rider that even while implementing the said concession, due process of law must be followed, as prescribed in the recruitment policy, by giving public notice, informing Public Employment Exchanges and having competition amongst the deserving candidates by holding written examinations and interviews. According to the Petitioners, the members of the Petitioner union and similarly placed employees of the Respondent Bank in due course will have to face large scale loss of growth in carrier progression whilst in employment due to denial of promotion in various higher scales, as per the policy dated 19th February, 2003, as disclosed in Circular dated 27th February, 2003 as also in Circular dated 14th February, 2012. 5) The Respondent Bank has resisted this Petition by filing affidavit of Vijay Misra, General Manager (HRD) dated 16th February, 2012 and additional affidavit of N. V. Rajguru, Deputy General Manager (HRD) dated 19th October, 2012. Besides refuting the grounds urged by the Petitioners on merits, the Respondent Bank has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this Petition on the ground that it suffers from laches and delay; non joinder of necessary parties; availability of alternative efficacious remedy by way of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act; the Petitioner No. 1 is minority union having a minuscule (less than 2%) membership and its members are bound by the Memorandum of Settlement executed by Respondent Bank with the majority employees' unions and including settlement dated 27th March, 2012 regarding mode of filling up vacancies by regular promotions from clerical to officer (Scale – I); the Petitioners are guilty of suppressing material facts and also of presenting distorted and misleading facts, and, for that reason, the Petition be thrown out at the threshold. 6) The most important and decisive statement made by the Respondent Bank is found in the affidavit of Rajkiran Rai G, General Manager (HRD) dated 22nd November, 2012. The same reads thus: “01. I State that the Officers cadre of the Bank consists of seven scales. The filling up of the vacancies at different scales is being done by way of (a) internal promotions as per Promotion Policy as amended from time to time and (b) by way of direct recruitment of officers as per Recruitment Policy of the bank as amended from time to time. 02. I say that filling up of vacancies of Officer Cadre in Scale I through Campus Recruitment will be in accordance with the Recruitment Policy and is restricted to the selection of Officers in Specialist Category only. I further state that filling up of any vacancy in Scale II and Scale III is done by direct recruitment (including campus recruitment) and promotions. I further state that filling up of any vacancy in Scale II and Scale III is done by direct recruitment (including campus recruitment) and promotions. 03. I hereby undertake to this Hon'ble Court that the Respondent Bank shall strictly comply with the recruitment and promotion policies respectively of the Bank, as amended from time to time. 04. I state that the current recruitment policy is as amended upto March 2009 and a copy thereof has been annexed to the Respondent Bank's affidavit in reply dated 19.10.2012. I further state that the current promotion policy of the bank is as approved by the Board of Directors on 28.03.2012 and is annexed to the Respondent Bank's affidavit in reply dated 10.10.2012. I say that the said promotion policy adheres to the Government of India guidelines dated 14th March, 2012. I state that no promotee is deprived of his/her legitimate entitlement under the Bank's promotion policy. 05. I hereby undertake that the Respondent Bank shall continue to duly follow and apply the banks promotion policy as it exists from time to time and further state that no prejudice will be caused to the legitimate promotional prospects of the eligible and suitable promotee employees, on account of direct recruitment including campus recruitments.” (Emphasis supplied) 7) After having perused the rival pleadings and considering the submissions made across the Bar, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the stand of the Respondent Bank, in the abovesaid affidavit, is a complete answer to the grievance and/or apprehension of the Petitioners. In the first place, the controversy raised in the present Petition is not about the procedure followed by the Respondent Bank in relation to filling up of vacancies by promotions of in-service officers/employees. The grievance, however, is, purely with regard to the method of appointment of direct recruits by campus interviews. Firstly, these appointments, in no way, would mar the promotional avenues or prospects of the in-service officers/employees of the Respondent Bank. Secondly, the Respondent-Bank has given undertaking that no prejudice will be caused to the legitimate promotional prospects of the eligible and suitable promote employees. Firstly, these appointments, in no way, would mar the promotional avenues or prospects of the in-service officers/employees of the Respondent Bank. Secondly, the Respondent-Bank has given undertaking that no prejudice will be caused to the legitimate promotional prospects of the eligible and suitable promote employees. Thus, as long as the ratio between direct recruits and promotees for filling in the vacancies in the concerned scale/cadre, as provided in the recruitment policy of the Respondent Bank and including in the Memorandum of Settlement executed between the Respondent Bank and the majority unions, is not breached in any manner, the in-service officers/employees of the Respondent Bank can have no cause of action nor would be entitled to stall the appointment process of the direct recruitments. Moreso because, these Petitioners have not challenged the Recruitment Policy of the Respondent-Bank but instead are seeking reliefs on that basis. That policy, in no uncertain terms, provides for the mode of recruitment through campus interviews in relation to vacancies to be filled by direct recruits. 8) Be that as it may, in view of the undertaking given by the Respondent Bank through its General Manager (HRD) in the above quoted affidavit, in particular in Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof, nothing more needs to be done except to accept the same and hope that the Respondent Bank will unfailingly adhere to its recruitment and promotion policy in its letter and spirit. That guarantees the promotional prospects available to the in-service officers/employees, who are eligible and suitable for being promoted to higher scale against the quota of vacancies earmarked for promotees. 9) Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition on the basis of the assurance and undertaking given by the Respondent Bank, referred to above, without examining the correctness of the grounds urged by the Petitioners. 10) Hence, this Petition is disposed of. In view of the disposal of this Petition, the Chamber Summonses filed in the present Petition also stand disposed of.