As per case facts, the Petitioner, a Chief Manager, challenged his non-consideration for promotion to SMGS-V for 2016-17. The Bank's rules required calling three times the vacancies, but for 33 ... filled posts, only 80 candidates were shortlisted, instead of 99, excluding him. The Bank initially stated 26 vacancies but promoted 33 officers. Petitioner argued this restricted his statutory right. The question arose whether the Bank unlawfully denied the Petitioner's right to promotion consideration by misrepresenting vacancies and if his superannuation affected this right. Finally, the High Court held that the Bank actually had 33 vacancies, and the Petitioner was wrongly excluded. It allowed the Writ Petition, rejecting the superannuation plea, and directed the Bank to reconsider the Petitioner for promotion with notional benefits and interest if eligible and more meritorious, without disturbing existing promotions.