7.From the materials on record, it is further seen that at every stage, the performance of the Officers including the petitioner, was assessed. If only the score given to the petitioner is within the zone of consideration, he can be promoted to the next higher post. The respondent has given scores of the petitioner from the years 1993 to 2003 and contended that the scores given to the petitioner are not within the zone of consideration for promotion. There is no contra material to reject the said contention. The petitioner, who is seeking promotion from 01.11.1989, has not taken any steps for getting such promotion, when the said promotion was denied. The petitioner has given an appeal dated 28.11.1990 for promotion to Scale IV. The same was rejected by the respondent, by order dated 22.01.1992. The petitioner has not challenged the said order. The petitioner has filed a copy of the appeal petition dated 05.01.1993, in the typed set of papers, captioned 'Appeal against non-promotion to SMGS-IV'', but has not produced any document to show that the copy of the said appeal petition was served on the Managing Director of the Bank. The petitioner has not taken any further action on the alleged appeal, when no order was passed. The petitioner has given representation only on 02.02.2018 and the respondent has rejected the same on 09.02.2018, which is impugned in the Writ Petition. In view of the fact that the promotion of an Officer to a higher post is based on the performance only and the petitioner has approached the respondent for promotion from the year 1989, only on 02.02.2018. The Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
