JUDGMENT : Shri D. Dash, J. - This is the second round of approach to this Court by the petitioner. Earlier this petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.14499 of 2011, which has been disposed of by order dated 05.07.2011. 2. For better appreciation of the matter, the order is reproduced here in below : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In view of the order the Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of issuing notice to opposite parties 2 and 3. Prayer in this writ application is to permit the petitioner to act as Chief Executive of Nayagarh District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Such prayer has been made on the basis of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management-opposite party no.2-Bank held on 11.11.2009 vide Agenda No.7 as well as the letter of the Secretary of the Bank addressed to the Managing Director, Orissa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. in Annexure-5. We, therefore, dispose of this writ application directing opposite party no.3 to take a decision on the letter of the Secretary of opposite party no.2-Bank in Annexure-5 dated 12.11.2009 with reference to the resolution passed by the bank in Annexure-6 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Requisites along with a copy of the writ application be filed by day after tomorrow (7.7.2011) for communication of this order to opposite party no.3." 3. In view of the above direction of this Court, the opposite party no.2 therein who is also the opposite party no.3 here in the present writ application has considered the subject matter of the letter of opposite party no.2 therein (opposite party no.2 in the present writ application) in view of the resolution passed by the Bank and has communicated the decision under Annexure-8. The decision has gone against the petitioner holding him to be not satisfying the fit and proper criteria for the purpose of being eligible to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Central Co-operative Bank. The decision has gone against the petitioner holding him to be not satisfying the fit and proper criteria for the purpose of being eligible to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Central Co-operative Bank. Briefly stated now the claim of the petitioner before this Court is that in view of his qualification and looking at his service record being posted in different position in course of discharge of his duty in the Bank, his case falls within the purview of fit and proper criteria and, therefore, he is to be appointed as the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of Nayagarh District Central Co-operative Bank. 4. The opposite party no.3 contesting the proceeding reasserts the decision as under Annexure-8, which has been finally taken after issuance of direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14499 of 201. The same stand has been taken by the opposite party no.2-the Bank. 5. In view of the challenge to the claim of the petitioner as advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 in course of hearing, I feel to address those one by one. (a) Point No.1- Challenge as to the maintainability of this writ application with the prayer advanced (i) As already stated after the decision that has been taken by the opposite party no.3 as per the direction of this Court in earlier writ application, the present writ application has been filed. (a) Point No.1- Challenge as to the maintainability of this writ application with the prayer advanced (i) As already stated after the decision that has been taken by the opposite party no.3 as per the direction of this Court in earlier writ application, the present writ application has been filed. The prayer made in the writ application runs as under: "In the above facts and circumstances this petitioner therefore humbly prays that your lordships may graciously be pleased to admit, issue notices and after hearing the parties issue a writ of mandamus directing to the opposite party no.3 to withdraw its personnel from the post of the Secretary of the Nayagarh District Central Co-operative Bank and allow to implement the resolution dated 11.11.2009 of the Committee of Management of the Nayagarh District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. As well as the Orissa State Co-operative Bank's Letter No.6777 dated 28.10.2009 and guidelines in pursuance to the Letter No. NB(Ori) DCRR/11359-1/2008-09 dated 19.03.2009 of the NABARD on the basis of Reserve Bank of India directives for allowing the petitioner to act as Secretary/Chief Executive of the Nayagarh District Central Co-op Bank within a specific time limit." So, now the petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opposite party no.3 to withdraw its personnel who is presently working as the Secretary with opposite party no.2 and allow to implement the resolution dated 11.11.2009 of the Committee of Management of the Bank claiming it to be in consonance with the guidelines issued by the NABARD on the basis of RBI directives. (ii) It may be mentioned here that undeniably the RBI is the apex policy making body governing the field concerning the subject matter of the present writ application whereas the NABARD is the implementing agency through the State Co-operative Bank and the Banks situated within the State. The resolution of the Committee of Management of the Bank has already been found to be not in consonance with the modified guidelines of fit and proper criteria prescribed by the RBI for Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of the State/District Central Cooperative Bank as communicated by NABARD vide their Letter No. NB(Ori) DCRR/11359-1/2008-09 dated 19.03.2009 and that has been the decision at the ultimatum in compliance to the directives of this Court. Therefore, it goes without saying that now the said decision as communicated under Annexure - 8 clearly stands on the way of issuing the writ of mandamus directing opposite party no.3 to withdraw its personnel from the post of the Secretary of the Bank for implementation of the resolution of the committee of the Bank. At this stage, it may be pointed out that an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the opposite party no.3 to take such a decision. Without elaboration on the point and further discussion, it stands repelled by saying such argument to be untenable in the eye of law since such a decision has been taken by the opposite party no.3 in view of the directive of the Court which was moved by the petitioner himself and that order has gone without being modified at any subsequent point of time till the decision of opposite party no.3 has been so rendered. This decision of opposite party no. 3 having been brought before the NABARD by the petitioner, the same has also received the seal of approval therefrom (Annexure - B/3). Thus, without any prayer for quashment of the said decision, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 on the score that the prayers as advanced in the present writ application are misconceived is acceptable. Although the above puts a full stop to the proceeding yet in view of the submission advanced those are also felt proper to be addressed. (b) Point No.2-(i)- The petitioner's case if falls within fit and proper criteria (i) In order to address the above point, it is better to first go through the three paragraph of the decisions of opposite party no.3, which are as follows : "In terms of the guidelines stipulated above, an officer of a Central Cooperative Bank should have worked at least eight years at the middle/senior level. Senior/middle level for the purpose shall be taken as the third level (scale/cadre) onwards (i.e. excluding the first two levels (scales/cadres) in the officer cadre) or as the highest two levels (scales/cadres) below the level of CEO. In the instant case, experience of at least 8 (eight) years in the 2 (two) cadres below the Chief Executive Officer i.e./Grade-I/(Addl. Senior/middle level for the purpose shall be taken as the third level (scale/cadre) onwards (i.e. excluding the first two levels (scales/cadres) in the officer cadre) or as the highest two levels (scales/cadres) below the level of CEO. In the instant case, experience of at least 8 (eight) years in the 2 (two) cadres below the Chief Executive Officer i.e./Grade-I/(Addl. Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Assistant Secretary) and/Grade-II/(Manager, Zonal Officer and Law Officer) is required for consideration for the post of Chief Executive of a District Central Cooperative Bank. It is observed from the biodata of Yameswar Mohapatra, forwarded under cover of your letter NO.NDCCB/9616/Estt. Dated 12.11.09 that he has worked in one of the qualifying cadres i.e. Manager from 31.08.09. Hence, his experience in the senior/middle level officer cadre as on 30.07.2011 is for a period of 1 (one) year 10 (ten) months and 29 (twenty nine) days as against the minimum qualifying period of 8 years. As such, he is not considered eligible for the post of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a Central Cooperative Bank." Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 at outset without going to the controversial questions relating to education qualification and experience etc. submits that practically at this point of time, the question of this petitioner being appointed as the Secretary/Chief Executive of the Bank does not arise even if he succeeds in this writ application by overcoming the points decided by the Opposite party no.3 in view of the fact that he has already crossed the age as per the said fit and proper criteria which says that for the purpose of being eligible to work as Chief Executive, the persons may preferably be not above 55 years at the time of appointment. Fact remains that here when the proposal came from the management of the Bank through resolution, this hurdle was not standing on the way. But now in view of lapse of time the petitioner's age no more has remained as within that which has been said to be preferred to for the purpose. His present age as per own showing is around 58 years. Of course this aspect has not been considered by the opposite party no.3 in the year 2011. But now in view of lapse of time the petitioner's age no more has remained as within that which has been said to be preferred to for the purpose. His present age as per own showing is around 58 years. Of course this aspect has not been considered by the opposite party no.3 in the year 2011. So, if plainly the age of the petitioner is seen he is not getting now fitted as per the fit and proper criteria (Clause-1) and particularly in view of the prayer advanced that he be allowed to work as Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, said factor cannot be said to be of no significance. In that way also the prayer as advanced at present is found to be infructuous. (ii) Now coming to the objection relating to educational qualification, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 is that the petitioner has no such qualification as stated under item no. (i), (ii), and (iii) of Clause-2 of the fit and proper criteria for Chief Executive Officers as at running page-24 of this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner refutes that when it is directed therein that a person can be so appointed, if he is a Post Graduate in any discipline, the petitioner having passed LL.M. fits into that and, therefore, he cannot be said to have been running with any deficiency as regards the educational qualification. Be that as it may, the submission as advanced before this Court as regards the lack of educational qualification of the petitioner, appears to have not been touched by the opposite party no. 3 nor that has taken as one of the deficiency. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that on that ground the petitioner's eligibility has not been questioned and thus that needs no answer. The submission of learned counsel for opp. party no. 3 in this regard fails. 3 nor that has taken as one of the deficiency. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that on that ground the petitioner's eligibility has not been questioned and thus that needs no answer. The submission of learned counsel for opp. party no. 3 in this regard fails. (iii) Next one is relating to the experience as at clause 3 of the fit and proper criteria as at running page 24 of the writ application, it has been stated by the opposite party no.3 that as against the required eight years of work experience at the middle/senior level in the banking sector, with the senior/middle level being taken as the third level (scale or cadre) onwards (i.e. excluding the first two levels (scale/cadres) in the officer cadres), or as the highest two levels (scales/cadres) below the level of Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner has such experience with him only for a period of one year ten months and twenty nine days. Learned counsel for the petitioner banking upon the service record as regards the petitioner's posting at different point of time ranging from the mid of the year 2001 to the end of the third quarter of year 2010 contends that the experience criteria as laid down stands satisfied. Learned counsel for the Bank i.e. opposite party no. 2 at this juncture contends that such work of a person remaining in-charge of a particular office which in this case is admitted by the petitioner who wants those to be so taken is not to be considered as the experience for the purpose of computing the experience criteria of the person. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Ramakant Shripad Sinai v. Union of India And Others" AIR 1991 SC 1145 , he derives support from the followings :- "The distinction between a situation where a Government Servant is promoted to a higher post and one where he is merely asked to discharge the duties of the higher post is too clear to require any reiteration. Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. In such a case, he does not get the salary of the higher post; but gets only that in service parlance is called a "charge allowance". Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. In such a case, he does not get the salary of the higher post; but gets only that in service parlance is called a "charge allowance". Such situations are contemplated where exigencies of public service necessitate such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score is that for quite a long period, the matter of promotion of officers in the Bank having not been taken up, the petitioner's case although had matured since long remained, when he has remained in charge in place of the officer of the higher post, the same cannot be ignored. Instead of further elaboration, the answer to the same stands like this that promotion is not a matter of right and it has to be done in consonance with the rules governing the services and posts. Therefore until a person is promoted as against substantive post, he has no right to claim the benefit in the service like as that of an officer in the promoted cadre. So, in that view of the matter, it can be unhesitantly said that the computation with regard to the experience as made by the opposite party no.3 in so far as the petitioner is concerned for the purpose of consideration of his case for being appointed as Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the Bank is justified. The claim of the petitioner that he satisfies the experience criteria without going to other controversies for the above lone reason is not acceptable. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing has filed an additional affidavit of the petitioner enclosing the proceeding of the second meeting of the State Level Task Force held on 03.03.2009 in support of the case of the petitioner. He has invited the attention of this Court to a resolution passed therein that the members of the Task Force had expressed their view as regards the widening the scope of fit and proper criteria. However, in that very resolution it has been clearly stated that the criteria when mandates uniform standard all over the country, the RBI has to finally take the call in deciding the matter relating to widening the scope of the criteria. However, in that very resolution it has been clearly stated that the criteria when mandates uniform standard all over the country, the RBI has to finally take the call in deciding the matter relating to widening the scope of the criteria. Admitted position is that, there has not been a decision in that regard of widening the scope of the fit and proper criteria as proposed. Therefore, it does in no way come to the aid of the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the writ application is found to be unmeritorious and accordingly stands dismissed. 7. No order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed