JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:—These appeals by special leave are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve common questions. Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 1990 is against the judgment of the Delhi High Court while Civil

Appeal No. 4457 of 1990 arises out of a similar judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. The appellants in both these appeals are aggrieved by the promotion policy of the respondent, the State Bank of India contained in Annexure A dated 31-10-1983 read with the Circular dated 13-9-1989 for promotion from the cadre of Junior Management Grade-I (Rs. 1175-2675) to; Middle Management Grade-II (Rs. 1825-2925). The policy provides for two channels for promotion, namely, the Merit Channel and the Seniority Channel. For filling vacancies by promotion from the cadre of Junior Management Grade1 to that of Middle Management Grade-11, 65% of the total vacancies were reserved for the Seniority Channel and the remaining 35% for the Merit Channel. The challenge in these appeals is to the filling by promotion of the vacancies through the Merit Channel. The criterion mentioned in the policy for the Merit Channel provides 40 per cent marks for written test, 10 per cent marks for seniority, 20 per cent marks for performance appraisal, 20 per cent marks for interview and the remaining 10 per cent marks for passing the examination held by the Bankers Institute called C.A.I.I.B. The procedure adopted for taking into account the marks obtained in the written test alone for shortlisting or screening instead of total of marks under all heads except interview for calling a candidate for interview is challenged as arbitrary. It is contended that the marks under all other heads amounting to a maximum of 80 per cent instead of the maximum of 40 per cent prescribed for the written test should be the proper criterion to call a candidate for interview in order to make a proper selection on the basis of merit. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that by taking into account the marks of written test alone there is exclusion of other meritorious candidates whose aggregate including the marks obtained under the other heads may exceed the corresponding aggregate of marks of candidates obtaining higher marks in written test alone. On this basis the policy for filling vacancies from the Merit Channel by promotion is alleged to be arbitrary. This is the common grievance in both these appeals. An additional point urged in Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 1990 alone is that unfair means were adopted by some candidates at some centres in a particular circle where written tests were held which has vitiated the result of the written test.

3. On behalf of the respondent-Bank, all the relevant documents were produced to negative both these submissions. It was urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the provision for the Merit Channel for promotion was made in the policy to give accelerated promotion to the academically brilliant persons with the object of providing incentive to them and thereby improving the quality of personnel in the higher cadre. He pointed out that the policy of deciding merit on the basis ,of written test alone has been consistently followed and the Circular dated 13-9-1989 was merely a clarification of the manner-of preparation of the Select List to make the selection more objective and to yield better results by getting the most meritorious candidates from all circles. This mode of preparation of Select List was adopted in 1989 also to overcome the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier, years. The object of choosing the most meritorious persons through this channel is better achieved by adopting the performance in the written test as the predominant factor for selection on the basis of merit. One of the attendant benefits achieved thereby is also to attract more brilliant people into the Banking service with the prospects of accelerate promotion to the more meritorious persons. The entry point for officers by direct recrui