JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who is working as Deputy Manager (Scale III) under the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is aggrieved by Ext.P3 and seeks to direct the 1 st respondent to review the select list for promotion from the cadre of Scale III (Deputy Manager) to Scale IV (Manager) and to include the petitioner in the select list by giving due weightage to Exts.P1(a) to P1(c) Annual Appraisal Reports and the seniority of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner joined service as Assistant in the year 1988. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 1997, as Assistant Administrative Officer in the year 2009, Assistant Manager in the year 2015 and Deputy Manager (Scale III) in the year 2019. The petitioner states that the next promotional post available to the petitioner is Scale IV Manager. The recruitment to the post of Scale IV Manager are resorted to in the normal channel as well as in a fast track channel. 60% of the vacancies are to be filled up through the normal channel of promotion. 3. The petitioner states that in Ext.P2 seniority list, the petitioner is evidently senior and holds rank at serial No.28. In the selection process for promotion to the post of Manager, the respondents selected 66 candidates who are junior to the petitioner, as can be seen from Ext.P3 promotion list. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's work record is excellent, his seniority is superior and he performed sufficiently well in interview also. 4. However, on the basis of the marginal difference in the interview marks, the petitioner has not been selected for promotion. The petitioner would urge that he has excellent track record and holds superior Annual Appraisal Reports. The petitioner is senior to almost 66 candidates included in Ext.P3 list. Considering the cumulative assessment of the petitioner's service lasting 37 years, he should have been selected for promotion. The cumulative assessment of the quality of the petitioner's work cannot be sidelined by marginal difference in the marks awarded during the interview. 5. The petitioner, relying on Exts.P1(a) to P1(c) assessments, pointed out that his superior officers have commented that the petitioner has put in an outstanding performance and is eminently suitable to handle responsibilities in a higher cadre. Such comments are consistently appearing in Exts.P1(a) to P1(c). 5. The petitioner, relying on Exts.P1(a) to P1(c) assessments, pointed out that his superior officers have commented that the petitioner has put in an outstanding performance and is eminently suitable to handle responsibilities in a higher cadre. Such comments are consistently appearing in Exts.P1(a) to P1(c). There are comments by the superior officers regarding his positive attitude, sound job knowledge and past experience and ability to perform well and his superior officers have categorically recorded that the petitioner is an officer capable of shouldering higher responsibilities. In fact, there are appraisals to the effect that the outstanding performance of the petitioner in all parameters warrants recognition by way of immediate promotion. 6. The petitioner points out that in the matter of selection to the post of Manager, a maximum of 40 marks are allocated for work record, 35 marks are allocated for seniority and 25 marks are allocated for performance in the interview. The petitioner, due to his excellent service, has scored 40 out of 40 marks as far as work record is considered. The petitioner being sufficiently senior in the cadre of Deputy Manager, he has been awarded comparatively higher marks for seniority also. However, due to the marginal difference in the interview marks, 37 years of the petitioner's meritorious service has been ignored. The petitioner is due to retire soon. The meritorious service of the petitioner has to be rewarded. 7. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others v. Manoj Kumar Chak and others [ (2013) 6 SCC 287 ] to contend that when the bare minimum merit of the candidates is determined, the promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority irrespective of the better performance of the junior candidates in the written test / interview / performance appraisal. 8. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shriram Tomar and others v. Praveen Kumar Jaggi and others [ (2019) 5 SCC 736 ], the counsel for the petitioner urged that as the promotion to the post of Manager shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the only requirement would be that candidates have possessed the minimum necessary merit, namely, minimum 40% qualifying marks in the written test and minimum 12 marks each out of 20 marks in interview and the performance appraisal reports respectively. 9. 9. Thereafter, the candidates are required to be promoted in the order of seniority. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the selection for promotion to the post of Manager is to be revisited and the respondents should be compelled to promote the petitioner, taking into consideration the 37 years of acknowledged meritorious service of the petitioner. 10. Senior Counsel assisted by the Standing Counsel for the respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that promotion to higher posts in the Company is governed by the Promotion Policy for Officers - 2006, which policy is amended from time to time. The petitioner's earlier promotions were also made on the basis of the Promotion Policy - 2006. The petitioner has not challenged the Promotion Policy under which marks are allocated for work record, seniority, interview, etc. The Senior Counsel pointed out that the petitioner has not raised any allegation of malafide. There is no allegation that the selection for promotion amounts to colourable exercise of power. 11. Senior Counsel representing the respondents further pointed out that the petitioner is at rank No.28 in Ext.P2. Only four persons above the petitioner were placed in the select list, which means a number of candidates who are senior to the petitioner and perhaps equally meritorious could not find a place in the select list. The writ petition has been filed on presumptions and conjectures. The selected candidates are not impleaded in the writ petition, even in a representative capacity. The writ petition is therefore bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 12. Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das [ AIR 2024 SC 4609 ] and contended that the petitioner only has a right to be considered and the petitioner does not have an absolute right for promotion. The promotion is not a vested right. The Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [ (2022) 12 SCC 579 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear violation of fundamental rights. But, if such a person is considered for promotion and remains not selected in the selection process, then it cannot be argued that there is violation of any right of such candidate. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, urged the Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. The petitioner joined the respondent's Company in the year 1988 as Assistant. The petitioner was later promoted as Senior Assistant, Assistant Administrative Officer, Assistant Manager and Deputy Manager (Scale III). The grievance of the petitioner is that the meritorious service of the petitioner is overlooked when the question of promotion to the next higher cadre of Manager (Scale IV) arose. Senioritywise, the petitioner is ranked at serial No.28 in Ext.P2 seniority list. The Annual Appraisal Records assessed by his superior officers would prove that the petitioner has maintained an outstanding record throughout his career and he has been found fit to be promoted to the next higher post even by his superior officers. The crux of the argument of the petitioner is that the cumulative assessment of the merit of the petitioner should not be sidelined or overshadowed by a marginal difference that may occur in the interview marks. 15. It is to be noted that the petitioner has been awarded 40 out of 40 marks for the work record. The petitioner has been awarded 8.04 out of 35 under the head seniority. However, in the interview, the petitioner scored only 9 out of 25. The overall score of the petitioner is 57.04 marks, whereas the last candidate selected for promotion in the process, had scored 64.07 marks which is more than the total score of the petitioner. 16. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the policy guidelines. The petitioner has not alleged malafide in the process of selection. It is further to be noted that in Ext.P2 seniority list, only four persons, who are seniors to the petitioner, have been selected for promotion to the post of Manager. 16. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the policy guidelines. The petitioner has not alleged malafide in the process of selection. It is further to be noted that in Ext.P2 seniority list, only four persons, who are seniors to the petitioner, have been selected for promotion to the post of Manager. As long as there is no specific allegation of malafide and in the absence of violation of any rules, it may not be possible for this Court to unsettle the selection process by reversing or altering the marks in the interview awarded to various candidates. It is true that the petitioner's assessment records are excellent. That does not mean that the assessment records of the other selected candidates are inferior. 17. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the bare minimum merit of the candidates is determined, the promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority irrespective of the better performance of the junior candidates in the written test / interview / performance appraisal. The Counsel also relied on the judgment in Shriram Tomar and others (supra) to urge that promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum- merit. 18. Going through the said judgments, I find that in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), the promotion involved was to the post of Scale II Officer in a Bank and in the case of Shriram Tomar and others (supra), the selection in question was to the post of Junior Management Scale II Officer. In the present case, the promotion involved is to a superior post of Scale IV Manager. The criteria that can be adopted for promotion to the post of inferior posts cannot be applied to senior positions like Scale IV (Manager). Therefore, the judgments relied on by the petitioner are distinguishable. In the facts of the case, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.