Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties

2. Initially the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions, had challenged the individual office orders whereunder the private respondents were promoted to the next higher grade i.e. JMGSI and MMGSII, in their respective individual cases alleging super-cession as they were seniors to the private respondents in the seniority list in their respective Parent/Feeder Cadre.

3. However, during the pendency of the writ petitions, since the vires of the provisions of the Promotion Rules were challenged, the matter was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the matter was admitted for hearing. However, when the writ petitions were being taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners have chosen not to press their challenge to the vires of the Promotion Rules. They have confined their prayer to the challenge to the respective officer orders issued in individual cases whereunder the private respondents have been granted promotion in the next higher grade/scale ahead of them by relying upon the same Rules contained in notification dated 29th July, 1998 issued under the provisions of Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 read with Section 17 thereof.

4. The writ petitioners in the writ application i.e. W.P.(S) No. 2198 of 2005 are aggrieved with their non-promotion to O.J.M.S ScaleI from the post of Clerk which they were holding. The petitioners in the other writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 265 of 2005, W.P.(S) No. 1957 of 2005, W.P.(S) No. 3760 of 2005 and W.P.(S) No. 7267 of 2005 are aggrieved with their non-promotion to M.M.G.SII Scale from the post of J.M.G.SI, alleging their super-cession by the private respondents.

5. The common grievance of the writ petitioners is that the Respondent Bank has illegally and arbitrarily denied them promotion to the next higher scale in violation of the principle of seniority-cum-merit as provided under the Rules framed by notification dated 29th July, 1998 and applicable to the employees of the Bank. These petitioners' claim to have qualified on the touch stone of merit in a selection process based upon their performance in written test, interview and performance appraisal report, for which separate marks have been awarded totaling 100 marks. It is the common case of all these writ petitioners that in the final list prepared after the selection process the names of these individual petitioners figured in the list. It is contended that though these writ petitioners have succeeded in the selection exercise and are amongst the list of candidates, who have qualified but the respective private respondents in individual writ petitions, who were junior to them in the seniority list of their Parent Cadre as prepared by the Bank have been granted promotion ahead of them and thereby superseded them which is in the teeth of the relevant Rules which prescribe the mode of promotion on the basis of principle of seniority cum merit.

6. The relevant factual details relating to the individual petitioners visavis private respondents in each of these writ petitions as are necessary for appreciating the issues involved in the present writ applications which require adjudication are being furnished in the following paragraphs:

7. The sole petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 265 of 2005 is aggrieved by the office order dated 18th October, 2004, whereby the private respondent nos. 5 to 14 have been promoted from J.M.G.S. I to M.M.G.SII alleging that he has been superseded in the matter of promotion, though he is senior to the private respondent in the seniority list published by the Respondent-Bank on 25th August, 2003 (Annexure4) to the writ application, where his name figured at serial no.60. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the private respondents in the same seniorit