K T MANJUNATHAIAH Vs. D V CHIDANANDA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitions are taken up with the consent of the parties. The petitioners and the respondents in the writ petitions were all junior management scale-i officers in the first respondent-bank. The next avenue of promotion was scale-ii officers. An interview was conducted and in the interview different marks were prescribed for various performances and ultimately the respondents in the writ petitions were promoted by an Order dated 21-10-1995 at Annexure-a.

(2.) PETITIONERS in the writ petitions who were also in scale-i category were aggrieved by the promotion of the respondents in the writ petition and challenged the promotion. The learned single judge by an Order in the case of D. V. Chidananda Murthy and others v Kalpatharu Gra-meena Bank and others, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the promotion made by the bank and directed the bank to redo the interview afresh. Aggrieved by this order, the bank has also filed w. a. nos. 1702 to 1711 of 1999. The officers who were promoted and whose promotion was set aside have also filed w. a. No. 2227 of 1999 connected with w. a. nos. 4483 to 4490 of 1999. Since the writ appeals arise out of a common order, a common judgment is passed.

(3.) THE only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether in judging an eligible candidate on seniority-cum-merit, marks can be prescribed for interviews and also after prescribing marks for interviews whether minimum marks can be prescribed at the interviews. In other words, can a person who is eligible for promotion from scale-i officer to scale-ii officer be denied promotion if the eligible candidate does not get minimum marks at the interview although he may be senior to the persons who have been promoted. In this particular case, the marks prescribed are set-out as under: