1. The petitioner had filed an amendment application challenging the seniority list, contained in Annexure 10, insofar as it concerns those who were granted promotion later than him but have been conferred with notional seniority from a date prior to him, vide resolution of the Board of Directors dated 23.2.1999 contained in Annexure 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank and consequently placed above him in the impugned seniority list. The said amendment application was allowed, vide order dated 15.5.2000. The petitioner in this writ petition is, thus, in fact, aggrieved by the said decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the consequential fixation of seniority of the concerned respondents.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that initially the petitioner was junior to the concerned respondents. However, he was given out of turn promotion in the Middle Management Grade II (MMG II) on 3.12.1997. The concerned respondents had been promoted in the said Grade only on 1.1.1999, but by the said decision of the Board of Directors dated 23.2.1999, contained in Annexure B, they have been notionally given promotion from 1.4.1997 without any financial benefit as according to the Bank, vacancies were available on 1.4.1997 and prior thereto and that the process for their promotion was also started before that.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision of the Bank is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the concerned respondents have been given notional promotion from the retrospective date only to give them seniority over the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, regulation 13 of the Bank provides that seniority of an officer or an employee of the Bank in a grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the date of his initial appointment on that grade or scale. In the present case, the petitioner was given MMG Grade II scale admittedly before the concerned respondents and as such, by virtue of the said regulation he became senior to them and acquired right of seniority against them, which is sought to be adversely affected by the impugned decision (Annexure B) and the gradation list (Annexure 10). . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be hit by the provisions, contained in Article 14 of the Constitution also.

4. Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, has submitted that the promotion granted to the petitioner was not in usual course. In fact, it was an accelerated promotion under the scheme of the Bank for grant of out of turn promotion, which provides that in case of Bank employees and customers/members of public who actively resist bank robberies and terrorists attacks on Banks, the Bank may consider a cash award not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. In addition, Bank employees may be given an out of promotion, if he satisfies the minimum conditions of eligibility prescribed for direct recruits to the post, but without reference to the number of years of service rendered. It further provides that the employees not covered by the above criterion may be allowed three advance increments in their existing grade on permanent basis. It is, thus, contended by the learned counsel for the Bank that the said promotion was an accelerated one and the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja V/s. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 715, though upheld the validity of "out of turn promotion" but, further held that on grant of regular promotion to seniors they will regain their seniority for the purpose of higher promotion. He referred to paragraph 16 from the said judgment, which reads as follows :

"16. We respectfully concur with the view in Union of India vs. Virpai Singh Chauhan, that seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their p