ORDER :

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for the following prayers:

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writs or directions/orders, quashing Clause No. 2(e) of 'Policy for Recruitment, Succession Planning and Career Progression for Officers' of the Circular No. 219/HRMD PA-11/2014 dated 13.11.2014 issued by respondent No. 2 produced at Annexure-A insofar as it pertains to introduction of personal interview and the weightage given for the marks in the interview for promotion is concerned as arbitrary, invalid and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other appropriate writ/directions/orders directing respondent No. 1 to promote the petitioner to the post of General Manager (Grade 'E') with his original seniority with effect from 31.12.2014 with all consequential benefits thereof;"

In substance, the challenge of the petitioner is to Policy for Promotion, Succession, Planning and Career Progression as depicted in Circular dated 13.11.2014-Annexure-A.

2. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Jitendra C.P. for Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Rajashekaraiah, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3; and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of writ petition are the petitioner joined the services of National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as 'NABARD' for short) in the year 1985 and has been promoted to higher echelons of office from time to time. NABARD by a Circular No. 219 dated 13.11.2014 notified a Policy for Promotion, Succession Planning and Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as 'Promotion Policy' for short). The issue in the lis is with regard to the selection from Grade 'D' to Grade 'E' i.e., Deputy Manager to General Manager insofar as petitioner is concerned.

4. Relevant clause in the policy is clause (e) which reads as follows-

"(e) Selection from Grade 'D' to Grade 'E' (RDBS)

Promotions from Grade 'D' to Grade 'E' shall be vacancy based and highly selective. The selection criteria will be stringent at this level. Selection will be made through assessment of performance appraisal reports and a personal interview. The zone of consideration shall comprise freshers to the extent of 1.75 times the number of vacancies in addition to repeaters. Officers in Grade 'D' with 3 years of 'qualifying service' as on 31 December of the year prior to the panel year shall be eligible for promotion to Grade 'E'. Officers in the zone of consideration having 'Above Standard' PAR marks as average of best 03 out of 05 available PARs immediately preceding the panel year will be eligible. Minimum qualifying marks for interview shall be 60%. The weightage of PAR marks and interview shall be in the proportion of 60:40. Selection shall be in descending order of merit.

The criteria at 2(e) above will also be applicable to promotions from Grade 'D' to Grade 'E', in other services, wherever Grade 'E' vacancies are available."

5. The afore-extracted Clause (e) clearly indicated that minimum qualifying marks for participation in the interview would be 60% making it clear that remaining 40% would be assessed during the interview. The policy for promotion as stated herein above was on 13.11.2014. Promotion process from Grade 'D' to Grade 'E' has taken place in terms of this policy for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. In all these years petitioner, in the teeth of the afore-extracted clauses in the Circular participated in the selection/promotion process for all the five years. It is not a fact that the petitioner was taken by surprise with regard to 40% marks assigned for interview in the promotion policy. Petitioner knowing this fact fully well participated in t