The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process for promotion should be based on suitability and merit, and the court's interference with the process is limited to specific grounds such as illegality, irregularity, or mala fides.

( 1 ) AN officer of State Bank of Mysore questions the selection and appointment of 4th respondent to the post of Senior Management Grade scale IV in the services of the Bank, inter alia on the ground that he is more meritorious than the 4th respondent and therefore, the Selection committee was not justified in preferring the 4th respondent than to him.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are. Petitioner and the 4th respondent were selected as Middle Management Grade Scale II Officers in the services of respondent-Bank pursuant to an advertisement issued by the central Recruitment Board. After such selection, petitioner was appointed and posted to work as Deputy Law Officer of the Bank at Hubli zonal Office with its headquarters at Hubli. The 4th respondent was appointed as Deputy Law Officer and posted to work at the zonal office at Mysore. Both of them have reported for duty at the place of their postings on 31-12-1984. Petitioner asserts that he was treated as senior among the Law Officers selected in Scale II. This assertion has neither any significance nor relevance for deciding the lis between the parties in this petition. After working for nearly five years in the zonal office at hubli, petitioner was transferred and posted to work in Bangalore Zonal office and it appears, petitioner took charge in the zonal office on 24-7-1989.

( 3 ) SOME time in the year 1990, petitioner and the 4th respondent were again selected and promoted to the post of Middle Management grade Scale III on the same day. It so transpires that petitioner was asked to continue to work as Law Officer in the Bangalore Zonal Office, however, the 4th respondent was transferred from Mysore and was posted to work in the head office against newly created post.

( 4 ) SOME time in the year 1995, one vacancy in the cadre of Senior management Grade 'scale IV was created in the services of the Bank. The said post was selection post. Petitioner and the 4th respondent were the only two candidates eligible and qualified to have their cases considered for selection and appointment to the Scale IV post. The Selection committee constituted for this purpose, after calling the petitioner and the 4th respondent for an interview on 27-11-1995, have preferred the 4th respondent for the selection post and accordingly, have recommended his case for appointment to the promotional post. The Managing director of the Bank, based on the recommendations made by the Promotional committee, has ordered for appointment of 4th respondent as scale IV Officer with effect from 1-12-1995 and the same is communicated to the 4th respondent by staff Circular No. 905/1995-96, dated 11-12-1995.

( 5 ) THE statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, aggrieved by his non-selection and selection of the 4th respondent to the promotional post, is also rejected by the Appellate Authority and the same is informed to the petitioner by the Bank by their endorsement dated 1-8-1998.

( 6 ) THE reliefs claimed are, to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Senior Management Grade Scale IV officer in the services of the Bank with effect from the date on which the 4th respondent was promoted with all consequential service and monetary benefits. Secondly, to set aside the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as Senior Management Grade Scale IV Officer in the services of the Bank and lastly, to declare that respondents 2 and 3 herein, are not required to take sanction of the State Bank of India for creation of the post of Senior Management Grade Scale IV (Law Officer) and that the decision of respondents 2 and 3 to approach the State Bank of India for creation of aforesaid post in the services of the Bank is without authority of law.

( 7 ) THE principal contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel Sri K. Subba Rao, for petitioner in support of the reliefs sought in the petition are:i. One of the members of the Selection Committee namely, the 5th respondent