1. - Both, CWP No. 826/98 filed by Om Prakash Gupta and No. 1239/98 filed by Bhoop Singh since involve common questions of law, were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. It is made clear that Kishan Kumar Sharma (petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 1239/98) moved an application to dismiss his petition as not pressed, as such vide order dated 9.7.1999 that application was allowed and CWP No. 1239/98 as regards Kishan Kumar Sharma was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Instant petition has been filed questioning decision of respondent Bank in holding petitioners unsuitable for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale III ("MMGS-III") and further assailing action of respondents whereby their appeals with regard to unsuitability were also rejected by a non-speaking order.Re. CWP No. 826/98

4. Petitioner initially joined service as Clerk on 10.12.1970 and was promoted as Junior Management Gr. I on 1.6.1978 and as MMGS-II on 1.8.1985, which is a substantive post presently held by him. Indisputably, petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of MMGS-III and as per promotion policy of respondent Bank, after being considered for promotion to MMGS-III in 1989, 90, 94 & 96, he was not found suitable.Re. CWP No. 1239/98

5. Bhoop Singh petitioner initially joined service as Clerk on 26.8.1977. He was promoted as JMGS-I on 1.2.1984 and MMGS-II on 1.8.1990. After being considered for promotion to MMGS-III in 1996, he was not found suitable and his juniors were promoted vide order dated 6.4.1996 (Ann. 4), dated 30.12.1996 (Ann. 5) & dated 2.1.1998 (Ann. 6).

6. Thereafter when selection process for promotion was initiated in the year 1998 and onwards till 2005, petitioners despite being eligible abstained from participation in process of selection, itself, as such there was no consideration in subsequent years.

7. For promotion to the post of MMGS-111, respondent Bank issued its policy vide circulars dated 24.11.1984 (Ann. 1) and 25.5.1990 (Ann. 2). As per 1984 policy (Ann. 4), in process of selection, a Committee consisting of two General Managers & an Assistant General Manager are required to make assessment by appraisal of performance of all eligible officers on the basis of past 5 years` confidential reports as also their achievement in various key responsibility areas held by them; and after interviewing eligible officers on the basis of combined rating given for their annual appraisal & performance at the interview, the Committee makes its recommendations to the Managing Director (competent authority) in order of merit of names of officers found suitable for fitment, equivalent to number of vacancies in MMGS-III. As per clause (iv) of policy of 1984 (Ann. 1), those who were aggrieved by their decision holding them unsuitable can prefer appeal before Executive Committee of the Bank which will examine overall performance and recommendation of promotion committee. A promotion appraisal form for the post of MMGS-III as a sample has been appended as Schedule A to. writ petition (No. 826/98).

8. It has also not been disputed even by petitioner that in all years 1989 to 1996, petitioner Om Prakash was considered by Committee under respective policy but has not been found suitable for promotion. According to petitioners, their juniors were promoted vide orders dated 23.11.1993 (Ann. 4) from 1.8.1989; dated 5.11.1990 (Ann. 5) from 1.8.1990, dated 16.2.1994 (Ann. 6), dated 6.12.1994 (Ann. 7) from 1.12.1994; dated 6.4.1996 (Ann. 8) from 30.3.1996; dated 30.10.1996 (Ann. 9) from 16.12.1996 and dated 2.1.1998 (Ann. 10) from 1.12.1997. Against these promotions (supra), they preferred appeals and that too were rejected by appellate authority, for which the case of petitioners is that communication of rejection of appeal does not disclose reasons assigned for holding petitioners unsuitable for promotion to the post in question.

9. Shri Vikrant Gupta, Counsel for petitioners contends that service r