was further stipulated that the candidate for being promoted should secure a minimum of 33.33% or 5 marks allocated for interview. It is submitted that it was proposed to complete the process of review of promotions effected in the year 1995 in respect of 8 vacancies that have arisen prior to 25.05.1995 at the first instance and to take up the process of selection for filling up the vacancies that have arisen during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 subsequently. Nextly, it is submitted that since the review of promotions in respect of the first lot of 8 vacancies and selection for promotions for the vacancies arose subsequently were taken up on the same day, it was proposed to draw up the selection list for the 8 vacancies at the first instance and to consider the selection of the unsuccessful candidates along with the freshers for the second lot of 12 vacancies on the basis of the marks already awarded to them at the time of review without subjecting them for a second interview and to draw up the selection list for the second lot of vacancies. Accordingly, the selection list for the second lot of the 12 vacancies was drawn up. The entire process was not objected to by any of the candidates as it did not cause any prejudice to the participants. According to the first respondent bank, prescribing the benchmark/minimum qualifying marks was strictly in accordance with the rule of seniority-cum-merit as defined/clarified/interpreted in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court first cited. It is submitted that the petitioners participated in the promotion process and were not successful since they could not secure the minimum qualifying mark/bench mark. They having taken a chance and participated in the promotion process and having not come out successfully are now estopped from questioning the method adopted by the bank. The procedure to be adopted for the selection was duly circulated by the first respondent bank by way of Circular No.34, dated 20.04.1999. The petitioners had not chosen to question the procedure proposed to be adopted by the first respondent and having participated in the process of selection and having accepted the method proposed to be adopted cannot turn round and question the validity of the same. Lastly, it is submitted that the procedure followed in effecting the promotions was strictly in accordance with the rules of the bank as well as the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment first cited, and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
