M.Y.EQBAL, J.

1. Whether in case of promotions on the basis of "Seniority-cum- Merit", comparative merit of the candidates along with seniority have to be judged and whether allocation of less marks for seniority and more marks for assessment of work and interview is permissible when promotion is to be made on "Seniority-cum-Merit" basis, are the two significant and interrelated questions which have necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

2. These two Letter Patent Appeals, one filed by the respondent Bank and another by the private respondents, whose promotion has been challenged, arose out of judgment dated November 20, 1991 passed by learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 927 of 1991.

3. The facts may be noticed with relative brevity having relevance to the issues aforesaid. The writ petitioners who are respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in L.P.A. No. 209/91 R filed CWJC. No. 927/91R for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature certiorari for quashing the office order dated March 30, 1991 purported to have been issued under the seal and signature of respondent No. 2, Chairman Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, whereby and where under appellant Nos. 1 to 6 who are respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the writ petition were promoted to the post of Area Manager/Senior Managers with effect from March 8, 1991 on the ground inter alia that they are senior to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as will appear from their respective dates of appointment. The writ petitioners claimed that the impugned order dated March 30, 1991 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of the policy decision and circular issued from time to time by the National Bank for the Agricultural and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to the NABARD).

4. Petitioners case was that by letter dated December 31, 1984 issued by the Chief General Manager, NABARD, a criteria was laid down in respect of appointment and promotion to the post of Area Managers and Senior Managers. According to the said circular, promotion was to be made from amongst the officers working in the Bank on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It is stated that on October 8, 1984 a seniority list of the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank was duly published under the seal and signature of the Chairman, wherein petitioners were shown senior to respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Petitioners further case is that in exercise of power conferred by Sec. 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act read with Sec. 17 thereof the Central Government in consultation with National Banks and Sponsor Banks evolved the Regional Rural Bank (the Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988. In terms of aforesaid rules the source of recruitment for the purposes of Area Managers and Senior Managers was the same as enunciated vide a circular dated December 31, 1984. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 1 evolved mode of selection which was wholly contrary to the aforementioned Rules as also the guidelines of NABARD. As it was resolved that 40 marks would be given to seniority, 6 marks would be given to educational qualification, 24 marks would be given in relation to performance of last 3 years and 10 marks would be given for interview. Petitiones further case is that so far promotion to the post of Area Manager and Senior Managers is concerned, source of recruitment is 100% by promotion from amongst the confirmed officers working in the Bank and promotion was to be on seniority-cum-merit basis. According to the petitioner therefore respondent Nos. 3 to 8 have been promoted in violation of the aforesaid mentioned policy decision.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the stand taken was that the Central Government after consultation with Reserve Bank and the Sponsored Banks made rules in exercise of power under Section 29 of the Act which amongst others provided for promotion to Area Manager/Senior Managers under Clause 7 of the second schedule of the Central Government notification dated S