The 1st respondent in W.P.No.4497 of 2005 filed this writ appeal, challenging the order, dated 17.02.2014, rendered therein by the learned Single Judge.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

The petitioners joined the service of the 1st respondent-Bank, which is constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, as Clerks-cum-Cashiers. The promotion from that post is to Officers Scale-I. To govern the procedure to be followed in this behalf, the Government of India published Rules, through notification, dated 27.07.1998. Accordingly to these Rules, the appointment to the Officers Scale-I shall be on Seniority-cum-Merit basis and the merit is to be decided on the basis of written test to be held for 70 marks, interview to be conducted for 20 marks, and performance appraisal, for 10 marks. The written test is divided into two equal parts, namely, the Banking Law Practice and Procedure for 35 marks and English for 35 marks. The Rules further require that such of the candidates, who have acquired minimum marks, shall be arranged in order of seniority and the zone of selection shall be double the number of vacancies.

A notification proposing to conduct written test was issued on 29.10.2004 against 12 posts, comprising of nine unreserved, two reserved for S.C. and one for S.T. The written test was conducted on 11.12.2004 and the names of the petitioners were arranged at Serial Nos.1 and 7 in the list. Though only nine vacancies were available under the unreserved category, the 1st respondent prepared a list of 20 candidates for that category. In the ultimate selections that took place, the petitioners were excluded and in their place, respondents 9 and 10, who figured at Serial Nos.12 and 20 in the list of eligible candidates, were selected. The petitioners challenged the selection s by raising two grounds namely, that the 1st respondent did not select them on a wrong premise that they did not secure the Benchmark prescribed by the Selection Committee and that the list for consideration was prepared by adding two candidates more than what was needed under the Rules.

The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. According to them, the notification, dated 29.10.2004, was issued not only reiterating the procedure for conducting the written test, interview and the performance appraisal, but also stipulating that the Selection Committee would fix a Benchmark and it is only those candidates, who secure the marks up to such level, that would be selected. It was urged that the Selection Committee fixed the Benchmark for general candidates at 70 marks, and for SCs. and Sts., at 52 and since the petitioners did not get the marks above Benchmark, they were not selected. The inclusion of two more names in the list against nine vacancies was said to be on account of some misunderstanding about the exact number of vacancies.

Learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the 1st respondent, as regards the fixation of the Benchmark, but on finding that there was no justification for including two more candidates in the list of candidates for consideration for appointment, has set aside the entire selections and directed that fresh exercise be undertaken in this behalf, from the stage of interview. The 1st respondent filed this writ appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in so far it has set aside the selections and directed remission of the selection process from the stage of interview. Even while supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it supported them, the petitioners have attacked the view taken by the learned Single Judge upholding the fixation of Benchmark.

Heard Ms. V. Umadevi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

It has already been mentioned that the promotions to the post of Officers Scale-I are governed by the Rule