JUDGMENT : Though the Writ Petition has been filed by two petitioners, the 2nd petitioner has given up his prayers in the Writ Petition as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is pointed out that the 2nd petitioner was permitted to take part in the impugned merit based examination for selection to the post of Manager Gr. IV in a subsequent year and he has already acquired the said promotion and that therefore, he has not chosen to agitate his grievances projected in this Writ Petition. As the Writ Petition is prosecuted by the 1st petitioner alone, he is referred to as 'the petitioner'. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned action of the 1st respondent-Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd (KSFE), in not permitting him to take part in the merit based competitive examination for being considered for promotion to the post of Manager Gr. IV/Junior Branch Manger. The petitioner had commenced his service as Assistant under the 1st respondent-KSFE on 8.10.1997. Thereafter on acquiring qualifying examination, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager as per Ext.P-1 order dated 28.12.2007. Promotion to the post of Assistant Manager is on the basis of seniority subject to passing the requisite qualifying examination for such promotion. The 1st respondent-KSFE had issued Ext.P-2 notice dated 18.11.2010 inviting personnel in the post of Assistant Manager, who are qualified and eligible to be promoted for next post of Manger Grade IV/Branch Manager, to participate in a competitive merit based examination for the selection process in that regard. Pursuant to Ext.P-2 the 1st respondent has published the list of Assistant Managers, who are eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Manager Gr. IV and since the name of the petitioner was excluded therefrom, he had submitted representation dated 22.11.2010 requesting that he should also be considered for such promotion and should be permitted to take part in the said examination. The said request was rejected by the 1st respondent-KSFE as per Ext.P-5 order dated 2.12.2010, which reads as follows : “With reference to the above, it is informed that, Sri. Bijukumar S.N. (2800), Asst Manager of your branch is not eligible for appearing the promotion test to the post of Manager Gr. IV for the year - 2010, as the eligibility is fixed based on the service in the cadre of AM. Bijukumar S.N. (2800), Asst Manager of your branch is not eligible for appearing the promotion test to the post of Manager Gr. IV for the year - 2010, as the eligibility is fixed based on the service in the cadre of AM. He was promoted to the post of Asst Manager as per Order. Dated 28.12.2007, to the vacancies arisen in the above post, due to the promotion of Asst Managers to the post of Manager Gr. IV on 18.11.2007 and his promotion was effected from the date of his joining duty in the promoted position.” 3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had published Ext.P-6 final list of incumbents in the post of Assistant Managers, who are qualified and eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Manager Gr.IV, pursuant to Ext.P-2 notice. The name of the petitioner has been excluded from Ext.P-6 as well. It is aggrieved by the said action that the petitioner has chosen to file the instant Writ Petition (Civil) on 21.2.2011 with the following prayers : “I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P4 and P5 and quash the same; II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to include the petitioners in Exhibit P6 list and to permit the petitioners to appear for the competitive written test to the post of Manager Grade-IV for the year 2010; III. Grant in favour of the petitioner such other reliefs which are just and reasonable under the nature and circumstances of the case.” 4. This Court had admitted the Writ Petition on 14.2.2011 and had also passed interim order that the conduct of the promotion test pursuant to Ext.P-2 would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition and if ultimately the petitioner succeeds in the Writ Petition the respondent will be liable to re-do the test. Since the petitioner could not secure the interim order so as to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to partake in the said examination, he had filed Writ Appeal, as W.A.No.222/2011 before the Division Bench of this Court. Since the petitioner could not secure the interim order so as to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to partake in the said examination, he had filed Writ Appeal, as W.A.No.222/2011 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 17.2.2011 had allowed the Writ appeal and had set aside the impugned order dated 14.2.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the extent which it refused to permit the petitioner to partake in the examination and directed the 1st respondent-KSFE to provisionally permit the petitioner also to take part in the examination subject to the final result of the Writ Petition. It was also directed in the said order that the examination papers of the petitioner could be valued by the examination authority concerned but the final result of the examination written by the petitioner would be withheld and will be released only on the basis of the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the final disposal of the Writ Petition and further made it clear that if the learned Single Judge does not uphold the claim of the appellants, then the examination written by them could be cancelled, etc. It is common ground that in pursuance of such direction issued by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, the petitioner was provisionally permitted by the 1st respondent-KSFE to take part in the said examination that was conducted by the Institute of Management Government. The said examination conducting authority, Institute of Management-Government (IMG) has been subsequently impleaded as respondent No.3 in this Writ Petition (Civil). 5. Respondents 1 & 2 (KSFE) have filed counter affidavit dated 1.3.2011 resisting the pleas and contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit thereto, in regard to the averments and contentions raised in the said counter affidavit. Additional 3rd respondent (IMG) has also filed separate counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the selection process for the post of Manager Gr. IV in the 1st respondent-KSFE consists of three ingredients: (1) Written Examination to assess the merit of the candidates, (2) Group Discussion and (3) interview and that the results of the candidates have been separately conveyed to the 1st respondent-KSFE and necessary documents in that regard have been produced as Exts.R-3(c), R-3(d), etc. IV in the 1st respondent-KSFE consists of three ingredients: (1) Written Examination to assess the merit of the candidates, (2) Group Discussion and (3) interview and that the results of the candidates have been separately conveyed to the 1st respondent-KSFE and necessary documents in that regard have been produced as Exts.R-3(c), R-3(d), etc. When the matter was taken up for hearing on an earlier occasion, this Court has specifically directed the respondents to make available the results of the petitioner in the above said written examination. Since the results were not forthcoming, further instructions were called for from the respondents and the 3rd respondent had made available communications showing that they had handed over the results of all the candidates excluding the petitioner to the 1st respondent-KSFE as early as on 22.2.2011 and that the name of the petitioner herein, (Sri. Bijukumar, N.S) is shown as serial No.626 therein and his marks have not been shown therein as he was permitted to part take in the examination based on the conditions in the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the above said Writ Appeal, etc. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that they have never received the results or answer sheets of the petitioner in which he had participated on the basis of the directions of this Court, etc. Though time was granted to trace out the documents or details in that regard, they were not forthcoming from respondents 1 & 2. The respondents were given 2 days' time to make available the result of the petitioner and also to produce the full text or relevant portion of Ext.R-1(a) settlement, etc. Though the relevant portion of Ext.R-1(a) settlement has been made available for perusal of this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits on the basis of instructions that despite their best attempts, respondents 1 & 2 could not trace out the answer papers or results of the petitioner and that the results of the petitioner are not available with them. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 has produced a copy of the letter dated 3.3.2017 sent by the Deputy General Manager (P&HR) of the 1st respondent-KSFE addressed to the Director of the 3rd respondent (IMG), wherein they have specifically sought for result and answer sheets of the petitioner and that they have not so far obtained the said results from the 3rd respondent (IMG). Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent (IMG) would submit that they have already submitted the entire papers and records in relation to the above examination including that of the petitioner as early as on 22.2.2011 and the maximum period of preservation of records is over and that they are not retaining any copies of those records including the copied version of the CD containing the results. This Court had earlier directed the respondents to make available the results to assess as to whether the petitioner has received the minimum bench mark in the merit based examination so that in case he has not secured the minimum bench mark in that regard, there was no necessity to adjudicate on the merits of the rival contentions. Now, that the attempt in that regard has failed, this Court is left with no other remedy other than to proceed with the final determination of the matter. 6. Heard Sri. G.P. Shinod, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Ramola Nayanpally, learned counsel appearing for R-1 & R-2 (KSFE) and Sri. Arjun Rajachandran, learned counsel appearing for additional 3rd respondent (IMG). 7. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner, who is holding the post of Assistant Manager, pursuant to Ext.P-1 order dated 28.12.2007 was eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion to the vacancies to the next higher post of Manager Gr. IV/Branch Manager, pursuant to the selection process set in motion as per Ext.P-2 notice dated 18.11.2010. The main contention of the petitioner is that 67 incumbents including the petitioner were promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, on the basis of seniority and passing the requisite qualifying examination in that regard as per Ext.P-1 order dated 28.12.2007. That 49 of such incumbents were allowed to take part in the merit based selection examination for promotion to the next higher category of Manager Gr. That 49 of such incumbents were allowed to take part in the merit based selection examination for promotion to the next higher category of Manager Gr. IV pursuant to Ext.P-2 notice dated 18.11.2010, while 18 other incumbents including the petitioner were excluded from participating such selection process. The petitioner would contend that all the 49 incumbents who were allowed to take part in the selection process are inclusive of 67 incumbents who secured promotion to the post of Assistant Manager pursuant to Ext.P-1 order dated 28.12.2007 and that all the 67 incumbents covered by Ext.P-1 order including the above said 49 incumbents and petitioners had actually completed 3 years of feeder category service only in January, 2011. As per Ext.P-2 dated 18.11.2010, the applicants should have completed 3 years feeder category service at least by 30.11.2010 (last date of submission of application). That the impugned action on the part of respondents 1 & 2 in permitting only 49 incumbents to take part in Ext.P-2 selection process and in excluding balance 18 incumbents including the petitioner is nothing short of hostile discrimination inasmuch as persons like the petitioner herein have been illegally denied to part take in the selection process for no valid reasons and that classification sought to be projected by respondents 1 & 2 is based on unreasonable and arbitrary considerations. It is not in dispute that qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Manager Gr. IV/Branch Manager are as follows : “(1) Decree of a recognised University. (2) Should have passed the Intermediate Examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or of the Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India. (3) Should possess not less than two years experience in the Junior Officers Cadre in the Company or (1) S.S.L.C. (2) Should possess not less than three years experience in the Junior Officers Cadre in the Company.” 8. It appears that all the 67 incumbents who were promoted to the post of Assistant Manager pursuant to Ext.P-1 come within the latter category whereby such hands would require not less than 3 years experience in Junior Officers Cadre in the Company for being eligible to be promoted as Manager Gr. IV. It appears that all the 67 incumbents who were promoted to the post of Assistant Manager pursuant to Ext.P-1 come within the latter category whereby such hands would require not less than 3 years experience in Junior Officers Cadre in the Company for being eligible to be promoted as Manager Gr. IV. Vast majority of the 49/67 incumbents in Ext.P-1 appears to come in the latter category, whereby it is required that they should have 3 years' experience in the Junior Officers' cadre in the company apart from the minimum educational qualifications. The petitioner would point out that as all of them were promoted to the feeder category of Assistant Manager pursuant to Ext.P-1 order dated 28.12.2007, they could join duty in that post only on January, 2008. So all such incumbents would complete 3 years' experience in the Junior Officers' cadre of Assistant Manager only in January, 2011. But that the 1st & 2nd respondents have chosen to exercise their discretion to waive such strict requirement and has permitted 49 of such incumbents to appear in the merit based selection examination pursuant to Ext.P-2 selection process whereas 18 incumbents including the petitioner have been denied the opportunity. The respondents would contend that the criteria for promotion and method for filling up the vacancies to the post of Assistant Manager/Manager Gr. IV, etc., are on the basis of actual business requirements as determined by two business reviews conducted and completed by 30th September of the year concerned and by 31st March of the year concerned. That though the criteria for promotion to the lower feeder category of Assistant Manager is on the basis of seniority but subject of passing of qualifying examination, the criteria for promotion to the next higher post of Manager Gr. IV/Branch Manager is on the basis of a selection process which consists of passing in a competitive test and thereafter their promotion to the post of Manager Gr. IV/Junior Branch Manager will be based on the rank they secured in the competitive selection process subject to availability of vacancy as per Ext.R-1(a). In the instant case, while considering incumbents covered by Ext.P-1 order for promotion to the post of Assistant Managers, in the year 2007, the actual number of vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager was assessed as 47+2=49 based on the business review that was duly completed as on 31.10.2007. In the instant case, while considering incumbents covered by Ext.P-1 order for promotion to the post of Assistant Managers, in the year 2007, the actual number of vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager was assessed as 47+2=49 based on the business review that was duly completed as on 31.10.2007. Further, it was also noticed that due to the unexpected increase of business at that time, 18 incumbents holding the post of Assistant Manager had to be promoted to fill up the excess requirements of Branch Managers/Manager Grade-IV by order dated 18.11.2007 and that a note was put up by the company officials as per Ext.R-1(b) dated 29.11.2007 to the Board of Directors of the respondent-Company for considering the promotion as against not only the 49 vacancies which were part of the original review but also the additional 18 vacancies of Assistant Manager which arose after the review (i.e. on 18.11.2007). The Board of Directors of the company decided it as a very special case that in view of the whole hearted co-operation and active involvement of the staff members in promoting business opportunities for the company, the additional 18 incumbents in the post of Assistant Managers may also be considered and that promotion could also be effected in the consequential additional 18 vacancies of Assistant Managers, apart from the original 49 vacancies which are existing in the original review. As per the norms of the respondent-Company, after the two reviews are completed as aforestated, promotions are effected so as to take effect from 1st of November and 1st of May, respectively, and that vacancies which have arisen only for the respective reviews alone would be considered for these promotions, to be effected for these two separate periods in question. For the review, i.e. to end on 30th September in the year concerned, the officials of the company would require reasonable breathing time of atleast 4-5 weeks to set in motion the selection process to the next higher category concerned like the post of Manager Grade-IV etc., and that for the review which ended on 30th September in the year concerned, the corresponding promotions as against such vacancies determined in that review should be effected by 1st of November for the year concerned. So also for the second review period, the promotions are to be effected by the 1st of May for the year concerned. So also for the second review period, the promotions are to be effected by the 1st of May for the year concerned. In the instant case, respondents 1 and 2 were not in a position to complete the promotion process to the post of Assistant Manager as per Ext.P-1 within the deadline of 1st of November of the year concerned (2007). Therefore, it has decided that in respect of those incumbents who are eligible to take apart in the selection process and who are being considered as against the vacancies determined in the first review period, it will be treated that their experience in the post of Assistant Manager for being considered for the promotion in the next higher cadre, will be reckoned from 1.11.2007 itself. This was so done as the respondents, who were not in a position to complete the promotion process by 1st of November and they could actually effect the promotion as per Ext.P-1 only on 28.12.2007 and the incumbents could join duty in the post only by the first week of January, 2008. Since the incumbents who are eligible to be considered for the 49 vacancies, which was determined for the first review prior to the cut off period of 01.11.2007, it was treated that those incumbents are entitled to reckon their service as Assistant Manager from 01.11.2007 itself and that they should not be penalised for the delay on the part of the respondents in effecting promotions as per Ext.P-1. The 18 incumbents who were considered for promotion as against the additional 18 vacancies of Assistant Manager which arose on 18.11.2007, those vacancies actually pertain to the next review period i.e. for the period ended on 31.03.2008 and ordinarily they could have been promoted only by 01.05.2008. It was only as a special gesture that those 18 incumbents were also directed to be considered for promotion as Assistant Manager. But in that case, the respondents 1 and 2 had to take a decision that their service in the post of Assistant Manager will be reckoned only from the date on which they joined duty, as far as the length of service in that promoted category concerned and as far as the pay fixation in that category is concerned. But in that case, the respondents 1 and 2 had to take a decision that their service in the post of Assistant Manager will be reckoned only from the date on which they joined duty, as far as the length of service in that promoted category concerned and as far as the pay fixation in that category is concerned. This was so done, primarily because the criteria for promotion to the post of Manager Grade-IV is merit based and not seniority, subject to passing the qualifying examination and if the permissible field of choice is exceeded, it will amount to granting permission to ineligible incumbents to partake in the selection process and thus providing opportunity for such ineligible junior incumbents to supersede eligible senior claimants. In a merit based promotion system, the criteria is certainly on the basis of merit-cum-suitability, but only from the incumbents who are entitled and eligible to be included in the field of choice and if the field of choice is exceeded beyond the norms, then it will amount to causing prejudice to the 49 senior incumbents covered by Ext.P-1 and that such an action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 could have been certainly branded as 'unreasonable and discriminatory' and it is only to avoid such prejudice and hostile action to such eligible senior incumbents that the ineligible incumbents like the petitioners were not permitted to be included in the field of choice as they were not eligible and entitled to be so included in such field of choice. 9. Of course, the respondents 1 and 2 have also made certain contentions that the petitioner has suppressed the orders promoting him to the post of Assistant Manager issued as per Exts.R-1(c) and R-1(d) and also the orders stipulating the pay fixation in the said post of Assistant Manager as per Exts.R-1(e) and R-1(f) and that the petitioner, approached this Court by suppressing the vital conditions imposed in Exts.R-1(c) to R-1(f), wherein it has been clearly stipulated that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager pursuant to Ext.P-1 would be taken effect only from their date of joining duty in the promoted position. Whereas, in the case of the other 49 incumbents, they were promoted as per orders in Ext.R-1(g) pursuant to Ext.P-1, where, it has been clearly stipulated in Clause (2) thereof that though their promotions will take effect from the date of their joining duty in the promoted position, but for reckoning the qualifying service for the purpose of promotion test, the effective date of promotion will be taken as 01.11.2007. Yet another contention taken by the respondents 1 and 2 is that the petitioners have not challenged the respective conditions imposed in Exts.R-1(c) and R-1(d) and therefore, they cannot be heard to raise the present contentions and that they are estopped from challenging the said contentions. 10. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit, wherein the main contention taken is that Ext.R-1(a) will not in any manner support the averments in para 4 of the counter affidavit, wherein reliance is placed on Ext.R-1(a). It is also contended that the said factual contentions raised by respondents 1 and 2 about determination of vacancies based on annual reviews for the two periods ending on 30th September and 31st March of the year concerned and that the said promotions are to take effect respectively by 1st of November and 1st of May of the year concerned, have never been in vogue in the respondent-Company and that respondents 1 and 2 should be put to strict proof in that regard as Ext.R-1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit does not in any manner support the factual contentions sought to be projected in the counter affidavit, more particularly in paragraph No.4 thereof. 11. In order to resolve the last aspect of the controversy, regarding the criteria for determination of vacancies and as to whether it is based on actual business review, this Court had given time to respondents 1 and 2 to make available a copy of the settlement referred to in Ext.R-1(a) or atleast the relevant pages thereof. Now the learned Standing Counsel for the KSFE, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, has made available page Nos.18 and 19 of the said settlement [it may be noted that page No.40 of the said settlement has been produced as Ext.R1(a)]. 12. Page No.18 of the said document is with caption “Memorandum of Settlement between the Management and the Workmen of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.” and it is entered on 16.08.1989. 12. Page No.18 of the said document is with caption “Memorandum of Settlement between the Management and the Workmen of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.” and it is entered on 16.08.1989. Clauses (a) to (f) of paragraph No.1 of the said settlement given on page Nos.18 and 19 thereof read as follows : "(a) The present staff norms of one Assistant for every 450 live subscribers will continue. For the purpose of norms, all live subscribers in running chitties plus subscriber having 3 or more defaults in terminated chitties shall be taken into consideration. Posting of additional Assistants will be made when the number of subscribers exceeds 225 subscribers. (b) One Assistant for every 600 hirers under the HP/EOHP/Old Bhadratha Scheme will be provided One Assistant shall be provided exclusively for the above when the total number of hirers exceed 300. When the number falls below 300 the same shall be taken into account for fixing the staff strength for chitty. (c) The number of Sugama and Fixed Deposit Accounts together will be equated to the Chitty subscriber as 3:1 for the purpose of arriving at the staff norms. There shall be a minimum of Rs.15 lakhs for every 1350 Sugama Accounts or proportionate as the total balance in all the Sugama accounts together. For the purpose of norms, the total number of Sugama accounts and the balance for the company as a whole will be considered with a variation of 10%. (d) Norms shall be taken based on business review as on 31st March and 30th September every year and vacancies/promotions filled up accordingly. (e) Leave Reserve : The existing rate of 5% will continue. (f) The staff strength for Head Office and Regional Offices shall be fixed on scientific basis and hands provided in addition to the number of personnel arrived at based on business norms." A photocopy of page Nos.18 and 19 of the said settlement has also been made available by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. 13. Thus, from a reading of the main para No.1 of the above document, it is clear that for determining vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager and other posts are not dependent on any fixed cadre strength or any temporary cadre strength that may be varied from time to time, but on the basis of the norm that one Assistant is to be provided for every 450 live Chitty subscribers of the respondent-Company and some of the fine-tuned aspects thereof is dealt with in Clause.1(a). Moreover, para No.1(d) clearly stipulates that the norms shall be taken based on business review as on 31st March and 30th September, every year and vacancies to promotions are filled up accordingly. The said settlement is a bipartite settlement between the representatives of the management and the employees and certainly, is binding on both sides and as a norm, the wording 'appointments and promotions' to various posts in the respondent-KSFE. The availability of vacancies should be determined based on the business review that should be conducted as on 31st of May and 30th September every year and vacancies to promotions should be filled up accordingly. The respondents 1 and 2 would submit that as far as the review for the year ending 30th September is concerned, their officials could take atleast four weeks to complete the actual process of setting in motion the promotion process and promotions are expected to be completed by 1st of November in respect of the vacancies determined for the review that is duly completed on 30th September. So also in respect of the vacancies determined for the review that is to be completed by 31st of March for the year concerned, the promotion process should be completed in the posts concerned by 1st of May for the year concerned. The stand of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the instant case is that due to exigencies of administration and other aspects, they were not in a position to complete the process of promotion to the post of Assistant Manager consequent to the review process that has completed in the year 2007 and they could complete the same only by Ext.P-1 dated 28.12.2007 and the incumbents could join duty only by first week of January, 2008. More crucially, the facts and materials on record would make it clear that in respect of the review that was originally completed for the period prior to 01.11.2007, the vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager was determined to be 47+2=49 as per Ext.R-1(b) dated 29.11.2007. But at the same time, it was found that emergent promotions to 18 posts of Branch Managers had to be made on 18.11.2007 from among qualified Assistant Managers and thereby unexpectedly, 18 additional vacancies of Assistant Manager had also arisen on 18.11.2007. Though such additional 18 vacancies in the post of Assistant Managers, which arose on 18.11.2007, are indisputably beyond the review period in question, for the period prior to 01.11.2007, and it would have to pertain only for the review that has to be completed by 31.03.2008, promotions to which should have been filled up by 01.05.2008. However, as a gesture to encourage the hard work of the employees who contributed to the growth of the business which relate to the additional vacancies, the company officials had to put up Ext.R-1(b) note to the Board of Directors of the company seeking permission to effect promotions as against those additional 18 vacancies apart from the 49 vacancies which pertain to the original review period. It was in these circumstances that respondents 1 and 2 had decided to effect the promotions not only as against the 49 vacancies in the original period but also for the additional 18 vacancies which arose from the subsequent review period. Promotions to these total 67 vacancies (viz.49+18=67), were thus effected as per Ext.P-1 dated 28.12.2007. At the same time, the respondents decided as can be seen from Exts.R-1(c) and (d) that in the case of the promotions effected to the 18 additional vacancies which pertain to the subsequent review period of 2008, the beneficiaries of such promotion would reckon the service as Assistant Manager for promotion to the next post of Manager Grade-IV/Branch Manager only from their actual date of joining duty. So also, the same condition was placed as regards the pay fixation benefits in that post which can be seen from Exts.R-1(e) and (f). So also, the same condition was placed as regards the pay fixation benefits in that post which can be seen from Exts.R-1(e) and (f). Whereas, for the beneficiaries of the 49 vacancies pertain to the original review period, it has been ordered as per Ext.R-1(g) that though the promotion will take effect only from the date of joining duty, for the limited purpose of reckoning the service of Assistant Manager for the promotion test to the post of Manager, their service from 01.11.2007 could be reckoned. 14. One of the points to be determined is as to whether the said decision taken by respondents 1 and 2 to confer the special benefit to the 49 incumbents covered by Ext.R-1(g), could be legally faulted with. The stand of the respondents is that they were obliged to make promotions as against the vacancies which arose in the original review period by 01.11.2007 and due to delays in the administrative process, they could effect such promotion only on 28.12.2007 and the incumbents could join duty only in the first week of January, 2008 and that the respondents decided that the delay on their part should not be the basis for penalising such incumbents for the beneficiaries of the original review process, inasmuch as the respondents 1 and 2 were obliged to make promotions to the post of Assistant Manager on or before 01.11.2007, as per the norms. If such timely appointments were made, those 49 incumbents would have completed 3 years service as on 1.11.2010 and thus would have been eligible for Ext.P-2 selection process. In the light of these aspects, respondents 1 and 2 had decided to reckon that for those 49 incumbents, their service as Assistant Manager would be counted from 01.11.2007, even though they had actually joined duty only by the first week of January, 2008 on account of the delay in making effective promotions as per Ext.P-1. The said stand of the respondents cannot be legally faulted with by this Court. The only minor defect in this regard is that going by the details shown in Ext.R-1(b) note dated 29.11.2007, the review period is treated upto 31.10.2007 instead of upto 30.09.2007. Obviously, two vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager had occurred on account of retirement vacancies which arose on 31.10.2007 and therefore, could not have pertained to the review period which had expired on 30.09.2007. Obviously, two vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager had occurred on account of retirement vacancies which arose on 31.10.2007 and therefore, could not have pertained to the review period which had expired on 30.09.2007. But it appears that except these two vacancies, all the other 47 vacancies have been determined on the basis of the actual business review as on 30.09.2007. One of the incidental questions would be as to whether the actual vacancies which arose for the period between 1st of October to 31st of October of the year concerned after the completion of the review that ended on 30th September of the year concerned, is to be treated as part of the original review or should be treated as part of the subsequent review, is also to be considered. This is a border line and grey area. But since the promotions are to be effected by 1st November of the year concerned and since the above said vacancies occurred on account of two retirement vacancies which occurred on 31.10.2007, those two vacancies could have been easily foreseen for the review that was completed on 30.09.2007. For these reasons, merely because 2 out of the 49 vacancies had arisen by way of retirement which occurred on 31.10.2007, cannot be the basis for judicially interdicting with the considered decision taken by the promotional authority, by exercising the judicial review power of this Court. Therefore, this Court is constrained to take the view that the stand of respondents 1 and 2 that 49 vacancies have occurred for the original review period is factually unassailable. Whereas, the 18 additional vacancies have arisen on 18.11.2007 which is indisputably for the subsequent review period. 15. The next serious question that arises for consideration would be whether there is any legal basis to differentiate between the beneficiaries of the 49 vacancies covered by the original review period and the beneficiaries of the 18 additional vacancies pertain to the subsequent review period. 15. The next serious question that arises for consideration would be whether there is any legal basis to differentiate between the beneficiaries of the 49 vacancies covered by the original review period and the beneficiaries of the 18 additional vacancies pertain to the subsequent review period. In the instant case, it is the common ground and as can be seen from Clause (iv) of Ext.R-1(a) produced on page No.8 of the counter affidavit that criteria for promotion to the post of Manager Grade-IV/Junior Manager is on the basis of passing a competitive test and the promotion to that higher cadre is regulated on the rank they secure in the selection process in that regard, but subject to the availability of the vacancies. It is clear from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent-IMG that in the competitive selection process that is entrusted to them, the merit was assessed on the basis of a competitive examination + performance in group discussion + performance in interview. Certainly, in promotion, based on merit-cum-suitability criteria, subject to acquisition of all qualifications, a junior incumbent can certainly prove his superior merit and supersede a senior claimant, provided the junior claimant, displays better merit in the competitive merit process. But even such merit based promotion scenario would be regulated by the condition that only those incumbents who come within the eligible field of choice/zone of consideration alone should be included therein. In other words, an incumbent who is not eligible to be included in the field of choice has no legal right to be included therein and if he is so erroneously included, and merely because he displays better merit compared to a senior claimant in the merit based competitive selection process, there is no ground for him to demand that he has a legal right to be considered for promotion. If the field of choice in such a scenario is expanded beyond the permissible norms, then it would amount to permitting an ineligible junior person to take part in the selection process and even to supersede an eligible senior claimant, which is clearly not permissible in law. If the field of choice in such a scenario is expanded beyond the permissible norms, then it would amount to permitting an ineligible junior person to take part in the selection process and even to supersede an eligible senior claimant, which is clearly not permissible in law. Even if, he is erroneously permitted to appear in the competitive selection process, the same will not confer any legal right to demand that he should be considered for promotion so as to supersede the claims of eligible senior incumbents, based on his so called performance in the merit based examination. 16. In the light of these elementary aspects, it is only to be held that the beneficiaries of the 18 additional vacancies which arose for the subsequent review period, cannot be permitted to be included in the field of choice/zone of consideration so as to take part in the competitive merit process for selection to the next higher category of Manager Grade-IV/Branch Manager. Viewed from that scenario, the 18 incumbents like the petitioner covered by Exts.R-1(c) to R-1(f), who were promoted to the post of Assistant Manager as against the additional vacancies which arose in the subsequent review period of 2008, will be eligible to reckon their service as Assistant Manager for the promotion to the next higher category, only from the date on which they had actually joined duty in the post of Assistant Manager, in contradistinction to the benefit given to the 49 other senior incumbents covered by Ext.R1(g). 17. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the classification sought to be made by respondents 1 and 2 as against the 49 beneficiaries of the 49 original review posts, in contradistinction to the 18 additional incumbents who were promoted to the additional vacancies which arose for the subsequent review period, is certainly based on intelligible differentia which has reasonable nexus with the objective to ensure that only eligible incumbents are included in the field of choice/zone of consideration for promotion to the merit process to the higher post of Manager Grade-IV/Branch Manager. 18. 18. Accordingly, it is only to be held that the impugned action of respondents 1 and 2 in denying the request of the petitioner to take part in the selection process for the post of Branch Manager/Manager Grade-IV, as per the impugned Exts.P-4 and P-5 rejection orders, cannot be legally faulted with and would not be amenable to the judicial interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. Consequently, the appearance of the petitioner in the aforesaid 2011 examination will stand cancelled. For these reasons, the prayers in the petition are only to be rejected and accordingly, this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.