JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.R. Barooah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2459/2019 by which the plea of the writ petitioner/appellant for fixing the ratio for recruitment to the higher post of Senior Manager (Law), MMG Scale III has been rejected on the ground that in absence of any prescribed ratio for filling up such vacant posts of Senior Manage (Law), MMG Scale III by way of direct recruitment and promotion, the appellant/petitioner has no legal or fundamental right to seek any such direction from the Court.

3. Before we examine the correctness of the view of the learned Single Judge, relevant facts may be noted.

4. The appellant/writ petitioner is presently serving in the post of Manager, Law (MMG Scale-II) with the respondent Punjab National Bank.

5. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the respondent authorities issued a notice for promotion from the post of Manager (Law), Scale-II to Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III on 05.01.2019 in which the petitioner participated. However, he could not get promoted as the promotional posts were restricted only to 2(two) posts and since the petitioner was at Serial No.6 of the merit list he could not be accommodated. However, soon thereafter, the petitioner found that the respondent authorities issued an advertisement on 12.02.2019 for direct recruitment of Technical Officers to the higher post of Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III. The said posts were sought to be filled up by way of direct recruitment conducting necessary recruitment process.

6. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that while the Bank authorities did not apportion sufficient number of posts to be filled by way of promotion, the respondent authorities sought to fill up these higher posts by direct recruitment in a disproportionate manner, thus, depriving the opportunity to get promotion to the higher post.

Accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition, WP (C)No.2459/2019, seeking direction to the respondent authorities to fix the ratio of source of recruitment by way of direct and promotion in the ratio of 50:50 so that the higher post of Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III can be equally filled up from these two sources of recruitment, and the petitioner who has already served for a long period in the bank as a Manager (Law), Scale-II can have a legitimate expectation of being promoted to the higher post.

7. The respondent Bank authorities in the said writ petition, WP(C) No.2459/2019 contested the writ petition by filing their affidavit-in-opposition.

8. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been clearly admitted by the respondent Bank authorities that there is no service Rule, Regulation or Policy in the Bank fixing the ratio of 50:50 for appointment to the said higher post, though there is a ratio as regards promotion whereby the posts which are to be filled up by promotion have been categorised in two categories in the ratio of 40% and 60% under normal seniority channel and merit fast track channel respectively as provided under the promotion policy.

9. In this regard, we may refer to para 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Bank in the writ petition wherein the stand of the Bank authorities is clearly discernible which reads as follows,

“4. That the contents of para 4 as stated are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that the vacancies to the post of Senior Manager Law (MMG Scale-III) are required to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 50:50 as has been assumed by the Petitioner and stated in this paragraph. Since, there is no such Rule, Regulation or Policy existing in the Respondent Bank which prove