$~30 & 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12329/2019 PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Ms. Manisha and Mr. R.K. Seewal, Advocates.

versus ALLAHABAD BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr.

Aman Gahlot and Mr. Azal Aekram, Advocates.

+ W.P.(C) 7539/2022 PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Ms. Manisha and Mr. R.K. Seewal, Advocates.

versus INDIAN BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr.

Aman Gahlot and Mr. Azal Aekram, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026

1. These writ petitions have been filed by an officer of the erstwhile Allahabad Bank (now merged) challenging his non-promotion from MMG Scale III to SMG Scale IV in successive promotion processes commencing from 2019-20 to 2022-23. The challenge is not to the Promotion Policy as such. The grievance is directed against the merit lists and results for the years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, on the allegation that the interviews were conducted in an arbitrary manner to exclude the Petitioner and to favour certain other officers.

2. Since the pleadings disclose substantially common grounds and the controversy turns on the same promotion policy and evaluation framework, the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Factual Matrix

3. The Petitioner joined Allahabad Bank as Scale I Probationary Officer on 16^th August, 2010. He earned promotion to Scale II and thereafter to Scale III as Senior Manager.

4. The Respondent Bank, by Instruction Circular dated 7^th February, 2019, circulated a reviewed Promotion Policy framed by the Board of Directors under Regulation 17 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. The said Service Regulations were framed by the Board in exercise of powers under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, after the statutory consultative and approval process. The Bank then notified Promotion Process 2019-20 (for both mainstream and specialist officers) and invited applications for promotion from MMG Scale III to SMG Scale IV (Merit Channel/Fast Track). The Petitioner applied and participated.

5. Under the Promotion Policy applicable to Scale III to Scale IV, evaluation was based on three parameters with assigned weightage of 100 marks in aggregate:

(i) Written/Online Test (Total marks 40), (ii) Performance Appraisal (APA average of last three years, marks 30), (iii) Interview (marks 30).

6. The Promotion Policy, inter alia, contains the following stipulations:

(i) Clause 11.6: Minimum qualifying marks for Written/Online Test will be 40%. The competent authority retains discretion to change the cut-off marks.

(ii) Clause 11.9: Officers securing less than 40% marks in average in performance appraisal reports of the preceding three financial years and/or in the interview will not be treated suitable and their names will not be included in the list of successful candidates.

(iii) Clause 11.10: The final merit list will be prepared strictly on aggregate marks obtained in the factors/parameters as per assigned weightage.

7. For Promotion Process 2019-20 (in W.P.(C) 12329/2019), the Bank fixed the cut-off for shortlisting for interview in the written test at 17.63 out of 40. The minimum qualifying marks for interview were fixed at 12 out of 30. Candidates meeting the cut-off were called for interview, and the final list was then prepared strictly on aggregate marks. The Petitioner secured 24.63 out of 40 in the written test, 25.30 out of 30 in APA and 19 out of 30 in interview, yielding an aggregate of 68.93 out of 100. The last selected candidate in the final list secured 20.30 out of 40 in written test, 24.19 out of 30 in APA and 26 out of 30 in interview, yielding an aggregate of 70.49 out of 100. The Petitioner, having secured 68.93 marks, was not selected.

8. In the subsequent Promotion Process 2020-21 (subject matter of W.P.(C) 7539/2