Dinesh Mehta, J.

The petitioner has knocked at the door of this Court, invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank, in not considering him for promotion for a period of four years, on account of a penalty inflicted upon him vide order dated 12th September 2012.

2. The facts, necessitating the petitioner to file present writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the erstwhile Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, which came to be merged with Marudhar Gramin Bank in the year 2012 and subsequent thereto, with effect from 25th February 2013, the said Marudhar Gramin Bank also came to be amalgamated with Rajasthan Marudhar Gramin Bank, the respondent No.1 herein.

3. While the petitioner was working on the post of Office Assistant at Chandsama Branch, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him under Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations 2010 {herein after 'the Service Regulations of 2010'}, which culminated into a penalty order dated 12.09.2012, vide which a penalty of reduction of pay was imposed as under:-

"Reduction of basic pay of Shri Rajesh Harsh by four stages in his present time-scale of pay, with cumulative effect, from the date of this order i.e. present pay Rs. 20,900/- is reduced to Rs. 17,200/-. However, he will earn his future increments falling due on anniversary date"

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal etc, assailing aforesaid penalty order dated 12.09.2012, till the filing of the present writ petition.

5. In exercise of powers conferred by Sections 17 and 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the Central Government promulgated Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 {herein after 'the Rules of 2010'}, which came to be published in the Official Gazette on 13th July 2010. These Rules have been made applicable to all Regional Rural Banks, including the respondent-Bank.

6. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 provides for two modes of appointment; by way of direct recruitment and promotion. As per the Rules of 2010, post of Officer Scale-I is designated as Group 'A' post and is required to be filled up 50% by way of direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion, from amongst candidates holding the posts of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in the Bank, in substantive capacity, having 10 years' service experience. The Rules further provide that 50% posts of promotional quota shall be filled by two methods viz. 50% by Normal Channel i.e. on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 50% by Fast Track channel, on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

7. Thus, according to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010, the post of Officer Junior Management (Scale-I) is also required to be filled by two modes viz. (a) normal channel, and (b) fast track. The process of promotion has been provided in Clause (iii) of Part-I of Group-A of the Third Schedule, according to which for the purpose of promotion, a candidate is required to clear a written test.

8. It is the case of the petitioner, that when petitioner's credentials were not summoned, he made a representation dated 06.12.2014 to the respondent-Bank, with a request to restore his Basic Pay in terms of Regulation 39(2)(b)(iv) of the Regulations of 2010 and to put up his case for promotion, before the Departmental Promotion Committee.

9. The petitioner was, however, informed that his case can not be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, prior to expiry of four years from the date of passing of the punishment order, in the wake of circular dated 02.01.2015, commonly known as Debarment Policy. It may be noted that said policy stipulates that in case of imposition of penalty of withholding increments, a candidate would become eligible for promotion, only after expiry of the period of penalty. It would be apt to reproduce relevant clause (8) of a the