Page No.# 1/26 GAHC030005532024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/94/2024 Smt. Zosangzuali and Anr. D/o Lalmakthanga (L) R/o Dinthar-I, Aizawl2: Smt. Miriam Laltlanmawi VERSUS The Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. R/b its Chairman and 6 Ors. having its Head Office at Tuikual South, Near Tennis Court, Aizawl. 2:The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. 3:Sh. C. Lalhriatzuala 4:Sh. Lallawmkima 5:Smt. Maria Goretti Lalnunziri 6:Sh. Lalhruaitluanga Sailo 7:Smt. Flora Zosang Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Lalfakzuala for R1&2 Page No.# 2/26 Linked Case : WP(C)/99/2024 Smt. Zirkungi D/o JC Rohnuna (L) R/o Serkawn Lunglei. VERSUS The Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. r/b its Chairman and 3 Ors. Having its Head Office at Tuikual South Near Tennis Court Aizawl. 2:The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. Tuikual South Near Tennis Court Aizawl. 3:Sh. Jacoba Chawngthu JMG - I Manager MC Apex Bank Vaivakawn Aizawl. 4:Smt. Laldinsangi JMG - I Manager Main Branch MC Apex Bank Ltd. Treasury Square Aizawl. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. C Lalfakzuala for R1 & 2 Page No.# 3/26 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG Date of hearing :02.07.2025 Date of judgment :14.08.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha. Also heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2/Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Limited. 2. It is seen that the instant writ petitions WP(C) No. 94/2024 & WP(C) No. 99/2024 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are analogous matters wherein, the issues in both the writ petitions are a challenge to the mode of promotion of the private respondents superseding the petitioners, who are more senior in service to the private respondents. The validity of the Orders dated 23.07.2024, is put to challenge in WP(C) No. 94/2024 and in WP(C) No. 99/2024, wherein the petitioners are aggrieved by the promotion of the private respondents which according to the petitioners is in violation of the channel of promotion and the criteria of seniority-cum-performance provided under Rule 23 for the promotion by way of Channel B (seniority-cum-performance) and Rule Page No.# 4/26 23 of the Mizoram Co-operative Apex-Staff Service Rules, 2024. This court thus finds it appropriate to dispose of both the writ petitions No. 94/2024 & No. 99/2024 by a common judgment & order, since the issues in both the writ petitions are the same. 3. The case of the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 94/2024 is that the petitioners were confirmed to the post of AG-I(Assistant Grade-I)(re-designated from AG-II by the SSR, 2024) on 14.11.2014 vide Order dt. 06.02.2015. Thereafter, the provisional inter-se-seniority list of AG I (earlier AG II) was made vide Notification dt. 27.02.2024 in which all the private Respondents were placed below the petitioners. Thereafter, vide Notification dt. 13.03.2024, numerous posts under the respondent No. 1 were to be filled up under Channel A & Channel B of Rule 23 of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (also referred to as MCAB SSB, 2024) in which 14 posts of AG II was shown as vacant for filing up under Channel B of the said Rules. The petitioners were among the eligible candidates. However, vide Notification dt. 23.07.2024, they was not given promotion to AG II in the Level- 8 of pay matrix of the Bank while all the private respondents, junior to them were given promotion along with other eligible candidates who were senior to the Petitioners under Channel B of appendix- III of Rule 23 of the MCAB SSB, Page No.# 5/26 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the writ petition for setting aside the impugned notification dated 23.07.2024 and also set aside the letter dated 12.08.2024, wherein, the respondent authorities had rejected the appeal filed by the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner No.1 was promoted during the pendency of the case and does not wish to pursue the matter and thus, he will be representing only petitioner No.2/Miriam Laltlanmawii in WP(C) No. 94 of 2024. The Petitioners No. 2 is at Sl. No. 19 of the inter-se-seniority list dated 27.02.2024, while all the private Respondents were below her at Sl. Nos. 21, 22, 32, 24 and 20 respectively, however, the respondents who were junior to her were given promotion to the posts of AG-II, while she was placed in the panel list vide the impugned Notification dated 23.07.2024. 5. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank, SSR 2024, there is a provision under Rule 23(3) for promotion by way of Channel A (merit-cum-seniority) and Channel B (Seniority, Performance, etc.,). As per Channel B, the weightage to Performance, Seniority and Interview is in the ratio of 45:20:35. He submitted that under Rule 23(8), it is provided that the minimum Page No.# 6/26 qualifying marks to be considered for promotion will be 50% of aggregate and that selection shall be done on the basis of combined marks of written test (under Channel A), performance, seniority and interview. Under Channel B all the marks put together under performance, seniority and interview would carry 100 marks. The petitioner had obtained and aggregate of 68.51 marks which is much above the required minimum qualifying marks of 50% of aggregate under Rule 23(8) of MCAB SSR,2024. The detailed procedure for promotion under Channel B from Assistant Grade I to Assistant Grade II is provided under Appendix III of Rule 23 of the MCAB SSR, 2024s which is the only method for consideration in the promotion from Assistant Grade I to Assistant Grade-II. 6. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in WP(C) No. 99/2024, the writ petitioner is assailing the legality of the Notification dt. 23.07.2024, by which the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are given promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-II (AG-II) to the post of Junior Management Grade (JMG), in the Mizoram Cooperative Bank, under the criteria seniority-cum-performance (Channel B) of appendix-III, Rule 23 and appendix-IV of the MCAB SSR 2024. He submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II (re- designated from AG-I by the 2024 Amendment Rules) from the post of Assistant Page No.# 7/26 Grade-I (as re-designated by the 2024 Amendment Rules) on 29.08.2005, and the respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II (AG–II) (as re-designated by the 2024 Amendment Rules) on 22.01.2004, while the respondent No. 3 was also promoted to the said post on 10.04.2012. Thereafter, the inter-se-seniority list of Assistant Grade-II (AG-II) under the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were provisionally fixed on 31.01.2024, in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3 while the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were shown at serial Nos. 8 & 2 respectively. The respondent No. 1 vide notification dated 12.04.2024, had proposed to fill up 6 Nos. of post of Junior Management Grade (JMG-I) including 4 post under Channel A (merit-cum-seniority) and 2 post under Channel B (seniority-cum-merit). The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submitted their application for promotion to the post of Junior Management Grade (JMG-I) for filling up of the 2 vacant post under Channel B (seniority-cum-merit) for which they were called for personal interview on 19.07.2024. Thereafter, on 23.07.2024, the impugned notification was issued wherein the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had been promoted to the post of Junior Management Grade (JMG-I) under Channel B in the Level 10 of pay matrix of the bank plus other allowances. The petitioner is aggrieved with the promotion of respondent No. 3 and she is much senior to respondent No. 3 in service. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that he will not press the challenge to Page No.# 8/26 the promotion of respondent No. 4, who though senior to the petitioner, was assailed for the consideration of her ACR/APAR which was submitted beyond the prescribed period for submission of ACR. 7. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent No. 3, being junior to the petitioner cannot supersede the petitioner on promotion. He submitted that the rules relating to promotion from AG-II to JMG-I under rule 23 of the MCAB SSR 2024 remain the same and Rule 23(7) deals with the distribution of marks wherein written test is not necessary for those candidates opting for promotion under Channel B (seniority-cum-merit), as the petitioner had scored and aggregate of 80.37 marks out of 100 which is above the required minimum qualification marks of required minimum qualifying marks of 50% of aggregate under Rule 23(8) of MCAB SSR, 2024. At Appendix IV of the rules there is a provision for promotion from the post of AG-II to JMG-I wherein under Channel B the length of service required in AG-II is 6 years, wherein the petitioner has been in service for more than 6 years as AG-II. The private respondents have, however been promoted to the post of JMG-I only on the criteria that they had scored more aggregate marks than her without considering her seniority and the fact that she had scored more than the minimum qualifying marks. Page No.# 9/26 8. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the law in respect of promotion by way of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority has been well settled. He submitted that in respect of promotion under the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, there can be no supersession of a senior by a junior simply because the junior incumbent had obtained higher aggregate of marks as long as the senior had obtained the required minimum aggregate of marks for promotion. 9. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same issue was decided by a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Mr. P.C Laltanpuia vs. The Mizoram Co-operative Apex bank Ltd in WP(C) No. 55 of 2006 dated 11.09.2007, wherein the promotion of those junior to the petitioners was set aside by holding that the senior incumbent was found to have the minimum necessary merit. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the selection for promotion in the instant cases with reference to comparative marks is contrary to the rule of seniority-cum-merit. 10. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Dhansuklal Maheta & Anr. Vs The High Court of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC online SC 972, wherein, the principles of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit has been dealt and Page No.# 10/26 discuss with any great detail. It was observed by the Apex Court that minimum requirement of merit and suitability, which is necessary for the higher post can be prescribed for the purpose that the seniority of a candidate is not a determinate factor for promotion, but has a dominant role upon fulfilling minimum qualifications, wherein, promotion must be based on inter-seniority. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. Vs K. Addanki Babu & Ors reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 (Para 18), which has been followed in the case of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 335(Para 13) and Shriram Tomar& Anr. Vs Praveen Kumar Jaggi & Ors reported in (2019) 5 SCC 736 (Para 13). 11. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is a third method of promotion known as Hybrid Mode of Promotion is recognize where seniority is duly respected and merit is appropriately recognize. He submitted that in the case of Harigovind Yadav Vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 145 (Para 25), the application of Hybrid Mode of Promotion as decided in K. Samantaray Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2004) 9 SCC 286 (Para 10 & 11) which followed the earlier decision in Sentikent Bank SC & ST Employees Association Vs Union of India Page No.# 11/26 reported in (1990) Supp SCC 350, wherein the Apex Court had observed that in cases, where promotions are not governed by any statutory rules, but by a promotion privacy the Hybrid Mode of Promotion may be resorted too, however, the same will have no application where the statutory rules required promotion by seniority-cum-merit. 12. Per contra, Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2007, passed by the co- ordinate bench of this court in WP(C) No. 55 of 2006 cannot be taken as a precedence in the present case, since the cited judgment was made in the light of the Staff Service Rules, 1995. He submitted that it is now a well settled law that seniority by itself is not the only qualification for promotion to a selection post and comparative merits has to be evaluated in which seniority is only one of the factors. 13. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Staff Service Rules, 1995, the mode of promotion from the post of AG-I to AG-II is seniority-cum-merit, wherein, the marks allotted for seniority and performance was 20 marks for seniority, 20 marks for performance and 10 marks for interview. In the present case, selection for promotion from AG-I to AG-II vide Notification dated 23.07.2024 was made on the basis of combined marks of seniority, performance Page No.# 12/26 and interview as per the provision of Rule No. 23 (8) of SSR, 2024. In the present case, under the criteria for promotion form AG-I to AG-II as per the SSR, 2024, Seniority carries 20 marks, Performance carries 45 marks and Interview accounted for 35 marks which shows that this is not seniority simpliciter to be considered but also includes performance. The learned counsel submitted that in the case of P.C. Laltanpuia (supra), the petitioner was not given marks for seniority however in the instant case the petitioner was also given marks for seniority. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1995 Rules against which the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this court passed its judgment in WP(C) No. 55 of 2006 dated 11.09.2007 is not applicable in the instant case, where the amended 2024 Rules is different. It is seen that performance is given more importance than the 1995 Rules and further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the 2024 Rules or the rules relating to the promotion under Rule 21(1). 14. The learned counsel further submitted that as per rule 23(8) of the MCAB SSR, 2024, even though the minimum aggregate marks of 50% has been mentioned, however there is a rider that the selection shall be made on the basis of the combined marks of performance, seniority and interview. The private respondents have also scored higher marks than the petitioners based on the three criteria, hence, seniority by itself is not the sole criteria for Page No.# 13/26 determining the merit of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents though seniority has not been ignored. He submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Notification dated 23.07.2024. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that as per rule 23(1) of both the 1995 rules and the 2024 rules provide that where two employees are securing the same marks, the seniority will be taken into consideration. However, in the instant case the respondents are securing much higher marks than the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had scored the highest marks for seniority, however they scored less marks for the other criteria and being less meritorious they were not selected for getting less marks. 16. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have participated knowing the SSR Rules, 2024 and the criteria adopted for promotion from AG-I to AG-II. Hence, they cannot turn around and say that the decision of the answering respondent’s bank in promoting the juniors who had obtained higher aggregates is a violation of Article 14 & Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex court in The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. reported in 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 1035 para wherein both the parties have signed a bipartite agreement. Page No.# 14/26 17. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Judgments of the Apex Court in: i) K. Samantaray Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2004) 9 SCC 286 (Para 10, 11) “10 In Syndicate Bank case2observations in para 14 throw considerable light on the controversy. The third mode (apart from seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority modes) has been recognized. It has been described as a “hybrid mode of promotion”. In other words, there is a third category of cases where seniority is duly respected and merit is appropriately recognized.” ii) Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 14 para 7, 15,12 by submitting that there is a difference in the facts of the case in P.C. Laltanpuia’s case (supra) and the instant case. iii) Manoj Parihar & Ors. Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 560 (Para 16) by submitting that in the case of Merit cum seniority, the inter se seniority list will be considered as one of the criteria wherein a comparative merit will have to be evaluated. 18. In rebuttal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the MCAB SS, 1995 have given quite a bit importance to the marks for seniority by allotting 20 marks for seniority, 20 marks for performance and 10 Page No.# 15/26 marks for interview this would not make much difference if the criteria is seniority–cum-merit in the Seniority Channel wherein the candidate in a Seniority Channel is required to secure the minimum bench mark for consideration. He submitted the marks allotted to the different criteria would make a lot of difference if it was under the Channel A of the rules which is merit–cum-seniority. He submitted that the decision of a co-ordinate court in P.C Laltanpuia’s case (supra) is applicable in the instant case since the different marks allotted in the criteria seniority, performance and interview is not for the purpose of analysis of the total marks or for making comparison but to see whether the candidate has acquired the required minimum marks. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. The facts of the case in both the writ petitioners as narrated above are not disputed. This court finds that the moot point for consideration in these two writ petitions is whether the respondent authority had erred in issuing the notification dated 23.07.2024, whereby the private respondents, who were junior to the petitioners in service, had superseded the petitioners in their promotion to the next higher grade in spite of the fact that the promotion when their promotion was considered under Channel B (seniority-cum-merit), Section Page No.# 16/26 23, Appendix III and Appendix IV Rules, 2024 (also referred to as MCAB SSB, 2024) and whether the criteria of seniority should have been the main basis for promotion to the next higher grade in the event that the petitioners had secured the minimum 50% aggregate marks stipulated by the Rules. 20. This Court herein finds that there is no challenge to the fact that writ petitioner No.2 in WP(C) No. 94 of 2024 is more senior in service than the private respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 7 as per the inter se seniority list dated 27.02.2024 and the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 99 of 2024 is more senior in service than the private respondent No. 3 as per the inter se seniority list dated 27.02.2024. At the appropriate time, both the writ petitioners the Mizoram Cooperative Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024. 21. It is also seen that when there was vacancy for filling up the post of Assistant Grade-II, the petitioner had applied for filling up the post under channel B (seniority-cum-merit) of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024 r/w Appendix-III and Rule 23 of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024 along with the respondents. It is seen that Rule 23 of the MCABSS Rules, 2024 is the Rules relating to promotion wherein a Channel A (merit-cum-seniority) the weightage to written test, performance, seniority and interview will be in the ratio of Page No.# 17/26 100:45:20:35. Under Channel B (seniority, performance etc.) the weightage to performance, seniority and interview will be in the ratio 45:20:35. Rule 23(8) also provides that minimum qualifying marks to be considered for promotion will be 50% of aggregate. Selection shall be done on the basis of combined marks of written test, performance, seniority and interview. It is also seen that the Appendix A-III provides for promotion from Assistant Grade-I and Grade-II, wherein Channel B under Section 23 of the MCABSS Rules, 2024 is (seniority, performance etc.) it provides that an employee in the Assistant Grade-I having rendered confirmed continuous satisfactory service to the Bank for 5 years will be eligible for promotion to Grade-II through seniority channel. It is also seen that the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 99/2024 had also opted to apply for promotion when there was a vacancy to be promoted from Assistant Grade-II - Junior Management Grade-I. Appendix-IV of the Rules again provides for promotion from Assistant Grade-II to Junior Management Grade-I and under Channel B (seniority, performance the qualification required is length of service in the Assistant Grade for 6 years. 22. It is thus seen that both the writ petitioners were qualified to apply for promotion under Channel B of the relevant Rules. It is also seen that both the writ petitioners had scored the minimum qualification marks to be considered for promotion which is 50% of aggregate. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No. Page No.# 18/26 94/2024 had scored an aggregate of 68.5 marks and the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 99/2024 had scored an aggregate mark of 80.37 marks out of 100 which are well above the required minimum qualification marks under Rule 23 of the MCABSS Rules, 2024. 23. It is seen that a Coordinate Bench of this court in PC Laltanpuia, AG-II in WP(C) No. 55/2006 had observed as following:- "Once persons are thus selected on overall performance as per rules there is no scope of picking up persons for promotion again on the basis of their comparative merit, as that would violate the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit. It is not in dispute that the promotions impugned have been given strictly on the basis of comparative merit of the selected persons shown in the result sheet. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as seen above, it definitely has violated the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit! The contention of the respondents that selection shall be the method of promotion on the basis of overall performances on three criteria, i.e. seniority, performance and interview is without substance and not acceptable for the reason that 'seniority and performance' has been provided to be the mode of selection in Appendix III of the said rules. A perusal of the relevant rules will further give the impression that 'seniority channel' and 'merit-cum-seniority channel' are the two modes of Page No.# 19/26 selection recognized by the said rules and promotion from Asstt. Grade-II to Asstt. Grade-I falling in 'seniority channel' only, the merit cannot be allowed to prevail over seniority when senior incumbents are found to have 'minimum necessary merit’." 24. It is also seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this court had referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah Vs. Addanki Babu (Supra), wherein the Apex Court at para 18 had observed as following:- "18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of 'seniority-cum- merit' in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning mark's on the basis of the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum- merit.” This principle was followed in the case of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Page No.# 20/26 Ors. (Supra) wherein the Apex court observed as follows: "13. Thus it is clear that a process whereby eligible candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority, from among those who possess the minimum necessary merit is recognised and accepted as complying with the principle of "seniority-cum-merit". What would offend the rule of seniority-cum- merit is a process where after assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit. If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. We accordingly hold that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the functions of the higher post, is not violative of the concept of promotion by seniority-cum-merit." 25. This court has also perused the decision of the Apex court in K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (Supra) wherein it was held that: "7. The principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority are conceptually different. For the former, greater emphasis is laid on seniority, Page No.# 21/26 though it is not the determinative factor, while in the latter, merit is the determinative factor. In State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood [AIR 1968 SC 1113] it was observed that in the background of Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit; that the rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of "seniority subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible for promotion". It was pointed out that where the promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted. But these are not the only modes for deciding whether promotion is to be granted or not. 11. While laying down the promotion policy or rule, it is always open to the employer to specify the area and parameter of weightage to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately so long as policy is not colourable exercise of power, nor has the effect of violating any statutory scope of interference and other relatable matters. The decision in B.V. Sivaiah case [(1998) 6 SCC 720 1998 SCC (L&S) 1656] is clearly distinguishable on facts and in law. That was a case where statutory rules governed the field. This Court, inter alia, held that Page No.# 22/26 fixing terms which are at variance with the statutory rules is impermissible. In the case at hand, prior to the formulation of policy in February 1990, there were no codified prescriptions. It was the stand of the respondent employer that prior to the formulation of the policy, certain guidelines existed and the objectives of the policy were to rationalize and codify the existing guidelines relating to promotions within officers' cadre. There is no statutory rule operating. It is for the employer to stipulate the criteria for promotion, the same pertaining really to the area of policy-making. It was, therefore, permissible for the respondent to have their own criteria for adjudging claims on the principle of seniority-cum- merit giving primacy to merit as well, depending upon the class, category and nature of posts in the hierarchy of administration and the requirements of efficiency for such posts. 10. In Syndicate Bank case [1990 Supp SCC 350: 1991 SCC (L&S) 440: (1991) 16 ATC 455] observations in para 14 throw considerable light on the controversy. The third mode (apart from seniority-cum- merit and merit-cum- seniority modes) has been recognized. It has been described as a "hybrid mode of promotion". In other words, there is a third category of cases where seniority is duly respected and merit is appropriately recognized." Page No.# 23/26 26. On the careful reading of the above cited case, it is seen that though seniority cannot be taken as the sole and entire criteria for a promotion under seniority-cum-merit, however it is also required to show that the concerned officer though more senior cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone, it is required to show that he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, from among persons eligible for promotion. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that allotting marks for seniority, performance and interview is not for the purpose of analysis of the total marks or for making comparison but to see whether the candidate has acquired the required minimum marks. And to find out whether he is found fit to discharge the duties of the higher posts. Thus, in the instant case it is seen that both the writ petitioners have scored well above the required minimum marks and therefore, can be safely deemed to be fit to discharge the duties of a higher post. 27. This court also finds that the judgment of the coordinate bench of this court was delivered based on the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 1995 wherein the marks allotted for seniority and merit are slightly different wherein 20 marks was given for seniority, 20 marks for performance and 10 marks for interview and thus seniority was given more Page No.# 24/26 importance in the old rules, whereas in the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024, seniority carries 20 marks, performance carries 45 marks and interview accounted for 35 marks, however this does not change the fact that the present writ petitioners were not found to be unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post. This court is thus in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench of this court and find that its decision and findings are applicable in the instant case. 28. This court also finds that the Apex court in H. Sentikent Bank SC & ST Employees Association Vs Union of India (supra) had observed that in cases, where promotions are not governed by any statutory rules, but by a promotion privacy the Hybrid Mode of Promotion may be resorted too, however, the same will have no application where the statutory rules required promotion by seniority-cum-merit. Thus, in the instant case considering the fact that the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024, has elaborately dealt with the Promotion policy of the staff find that the Hybrid mode of promotion is not required to be applied in the instant writ petitions. 29. From the above discussions and findings, this court is constrained to set aside the impugned Notification dated 23.07.2024 in WP(C) No. 94/2024 to the Page No.# 25/26 extend that the petitioner No. 2 should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II along with the other eligible candidates with retrospective effect from 23.07.2024 along with other service benefits in which all the private respondents, were given on promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank, in the Level-8 of pay matrix of the Bank and also set aside the letter dated 12.08.2024, wherein the respondent authorities had rejected the appeal filed by the writ petitioner. Likewise the impugned Notification dated 23.07.2024 in WP(C) No. 99/2024 is set aside to the extent that the writ petitioner should be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Management Grade (JMG), in the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank along with the other eligible candidates with retrospective effect from 23.07.2024 along with other service benefits in which all the private respondents, were given on promotion to the post of Junior Management Grade (JMG), in the Level-10 of pay matrix of the Bank. 30. Accordingly, the instant Writ petitions WP(C) No. 94 of 2024 and WP(C) No. 94 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 26/26 Comparing Assistant