JUDGMENT : (P.G. Ajithkumar, J.) : These appeals arose on a common judgment dated 19.11.2013. W.P.(C) Nos.28428 of 2009, 13907 of 2010 and 12257 of 2011 together with two other writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per the said judgment. The common issue raised was that the select lists prepared for promotion to the post of officers scale II in the South Malabar Gramin Bank were illegal and violative of the provisions of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 (Rules) and also violative Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respective appellants who could not get through the process for promotion and suffered dismissal of their writ petitions preferred these appeals invoking the provisions of Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for the South Malabar Gramin Bank and the contesting respondents. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the South Malabar Gramin Bank would submit that the appellants had already retired from service and therefore the cause of action did not survive. But the learned counsel for the appellants wants these matters decided on merits for, the result of the litigation has an effect on the service and service benefits of the appellants. 4. Relevant part of the Rules which contain the criteria for promotion to the post of scale II officers. It reads thus: “2. (a) Name of post : Scale II Officer. (b) Classification : Group “A” (c) Source of appointment : 100% by promotion (d) Whether promotion to be made on seniority basis or seniority cum merit basis : Promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority cum merit (e) eligibility : Officers holding post for eight years as an officer on regular basis in the Regional Rural Bank shall be considered for promotion in scale II post in that bank: Provided that no officer shall be considered for promotion unless he has been confirmed in the feeder grade post: Provided further that the Board may, with the prior approval of National Bank, relax the qualifying service for a period not exceeding two years, if eligible officers are not available. xx Xx (j) Selection process for promotion : The selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks given below. Xx Xx : A list of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall be called for interview Xx Xx (B) Interview (20 marks) : There shall be no minimum qualifying marks for the interview (c) Performance Appraisal Reports (20 marks) : Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion.” 5. The notification dated 05.05.2009 inviting applications for promotion further prescribed that written test carries 60 marks, interview carries 20 marks and performance appraisal carries 20 marks. The aspirants should obtain 59 marks out of the total 100 marks in order to qualify. The written examination, interview and scrutiny of other parameters were conducted and the select lists were published. The appellants alleging that prescription of a minimum marks of 40% for the written examination and subsequently a benchmark for qualifying for promotion are illegal and violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.V.Sivaiah v. K.Addanki Babu [ (1998) 6 SCC 720 ] and also Union of India v. Lt.Gen Rajendra Sing Kadyan [ (2000) 6 SCC 698 ]. 6. The learned counsel would submit that the respective select lists are illegal and liable to be set aside, but the learned single Judge proceeded in a wrong tangent in order to hold that there was no violation of the principle of seniority cum merit criteria. It is also urged that when 59 marks out of 100 was fixed to qualify for promotion, a candidate securing 40% in the written examination and getting qualified to attend the interview has to obtain 35 out of 40 marks allocated for the interview and work appraisal, which is not normally possible. Therefore, the criteria fixed by the employer is illogical and violative of even the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Therefore, the criteria fixed by the employer is illogical and violative of even the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. The decision of a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in B.V.Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu [ (1998) 6 SCC 720 ] is placed reliance on by the learned Counsel for the appellants to contend that fixing a benchmark based on the past performance and marks in the interview of the candidates is against the accepted norms for promotion. It is urged that such a criterion tantamount to a comparative assessment of the candidates and would negate the seniority consideration altogether. 8. In Balbir Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab [ (2013) 11 SCC 746 ] the Apex Court explained that where a promotion is to be given on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit", such promotion will not automatically be granted based on seniority alone. Efficiency of administration cannot be compromised at any cost. Thus, to meet said requirements, all eligible candidates in the feeder cadre must be subjected to an assessment process to determine whether or not an individual possesses the specified minimum necessary merit. If he does have the same, his case must be considered giving due weightage to his seniority. Furthermore, the statutory authority must adopt a bona fide and reasonable method to determine the minimum necessary merit, as is required to be possessed by the eligible candidate. His period of service, educational qualifications, his performance during his past service for a particular period, his marks in the written test, interview, etc. can certainly be taken into account The authority must further be competent to allocate separate maximum marks on each of the such parameters. Fixing such criteria, or providing for minimum necessary merit, falls within the exclusive domain of policy making. Courts cannot interfere with such a policy decision in the exercise of their judicial powers, unless the same is found to be off the mark, unreasonable, or malafide. 9. In Lt. Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan [ (2000) 6 SCC 698 ] the Apex Court observed that "seniority-cum-merit" postulates the requirement of certain minimum merit or satisfying a benchmark previously fixed. Subject to fulfilling this requirement the promotion is based on seniority. There is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-merit. 9. In Lt. Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan [ (2000) 6 SCC 698 ] the Apex Court observed that "seniority-cum-merit" postulates the requirement of certain minimum merit or satisfying a benchmark previously fixed. Subject to fulfilling this requirement the promotion is based on seniority. There is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-merit. This principle was reiterated in Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha v. Dr. K. Santhakumari [ (2001) 5 SCC 60 ]; Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank [ (2010) 1 SCC 335 ] and Haryana State Warehousing Corporation v. Jagat Ram [ (2011) 3 SCC 422 ]. It is thus evident that even if a promotion is to be made on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit", a person who is lower in the seniority list, can in fact be promoted, ignoring the claim of the senior person, who fails to achieve the benchmark, i.e., minimum requisite merit. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants analyzed the criteria in the instant case to fortify the stand that it is illegal. 59 marks out of 100 was fixed as the final benchmark. It is submitted that while 40% being the cut-off for the written examination which carries 60 marks, scoring for the interview and the past performance becomes decisive. In other words, a candidate who scores 40% out of the maximum marks of 60 for the written examination, i.e., 24 marks has to have 35 more marks to qualify, for the interview and work assessment together, which carry only 40 marks. It is hence alleged that the procedure followed by respondent No.1 tantamounts to selection based on merit, and the seniority becomes insignificant. 11. As per the scheme which is called in question in these cases, the basis for the final benchmark is the total score on the summation of the three components, written examination, interview and work assessment. So, all three components have an equal say, while the written examination serves the purpose of a qualifier also. It may be true that a candidate who scores only 24 marks in the written examination would find it difficult to get qualified. But, that is because he scored only the minimum marks. A candidate who scored only the minimum marks cannot be said to be a person of merits. It may be true that a candidate who scores only 24 marks in the written examination would find it difficult to get qualified. But, that is because he scored only the minimum marks. A candidate who scored only the minimum marks cannot be said to be a person of merits. Once a candidate qualifies, his promotion is corresponding to his seniority among the selectees. Therefore, it cannot be said that by fixing such a benchmark to qualify, seniority becomes nugatory or irrelevant. Rather by fixing such a criteria, there did not occur shifting the criteria from seniority-cum-merit to merit-cum-seniority principle. 12. The above view gets affirmation from the ratio in B.V.Sivaiah [ (1998) 6 SCC 720 ], where the Apex Court held that the criterion of seniority-cum-merit envisaged by the Rule for promotion shall not involve the assessment of comparative merit for promotion. The word "selection" in the context of promotion has been used in the sense of selecting an officer for promotion based on the criterion of seniority-cum-merit. The requirement that such selection shall be made based on interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years is consistent with the criterion of seniority-cum-merit as explained in the State of Kerala v. N. M.Thomas [ AIR 1976 SC 490 ]. The principle expounded was that "given the necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration" the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority. The said mode enables an assessment to be made about the minimum necessary merit requisite for the efficiency of administration and it cannot be construed as importing assessment of comparative merit of the officers eligible for promotion. 13. Viewed in the light of the exposition of law adverted to above, we are of the view that fixing 59 marks as the qualifying benchmark for promotion to the scale II officer is not illegal or arbitrary. Such a view taken by the learned Single Judge and the further finding that there was no violation of any fundamental rights of the appellants do not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, these appeals fail. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.