N.Pandey, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the Order No. 2/88 dated 23.3.1988 as contained in Annexure 14, whereby and whereunder, Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 were promoted as Field Supervisors under the respondent-Bank. A prayer has also been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the Bank authorities to grant petitioners promotion against such posts strictly in accordance with Circular No. 23 dated 30.5.1986, as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

2. Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 were initially appointed under the respondent-Bank against various posts in the year 1981. Later, with a view to fill up the posts of Field Supervisors and Branch Managers in higher scale, Employment notices were published by the authorities by which certain percentage of Field Supervisors were required to be filled up on direct recruitment from the outside candidates and remaining posts by promotion. Initially on 7.1.1985, interview was held for filling up the posts on ad hoc basis because certain policy matters were still being finalised. Ultimately, on 27.5.1986, the Board of Directors approved and adopted the guidelines of the Bank as contained in Annexure 8 for the purpose of selection and appointment to the posts. Thereafter, on 24.6.1986, the management conducted a second interview. This is also not in dispute that the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 had appeared at the interview and ultimately having examined the relative performance of the candidates by Order No. 2/88 dated 23.3.1988 (Annexure 14) Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 were promoted to the post of Field Supervisor.

3. It is contended that from the bare reference to the relevant guidelines of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD), as adopted by the Board, contained in Annexure 8 as well as the previous policy 50% posts of Field Supervisors were required to be filled up on direct recruitment from open market and 50% posts were to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Sr. clerk-cum-Sr. cashier on the bass of seniority-cum-merit. The instant promotion was undisputedly against 50% posts which were required to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. But the respondent authority, as would appear from the impugned order prepared the selection list purely on the basis of merit at interview and no weightage was given to seniority of the petitioners. In other words, since most of the petitioners were admittedly senior to Respondent Nos. 4 to 19, therefore, on the basis of their seniority they were entitled to be promoted.

4. In this regard, learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to show that he had also admitted that Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 were promoted to the post of Field Supervisors since in the merit list they were placed above the petitioners.

5. Mr. Jha contended that in view of several decisions of the apex Court including that in the case of B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. V/s. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. -- , as also full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. V/s. D.P. Singh and Dina Nath Prasad Singh and Ors. 2000 (1) PLJR 251, in a case of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, greater emphasis should, be given on seniority. Such an officer can only be denied promotion, if he is found Unfit to discharge the duty to the higher post. In other words, rule of seniority-cum-merit in the matter of promotion postulates that seniors even though less meritorious shall have priority and comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made.

6. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank as also learned Counsel for the private respondents repelling the submission on behalf of the petitioners contended that the instant promotion was granted, exclusively on the basis of criteria, i.e., seniority-cum-merit as required by the guidelines of the NABARD. It was further contended th