JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - The learned counsel for the petitioners has deleted the names of other petitioners and now presses this petition on behalf of the petitioner to. 1 only. 2. The petitioner is clerk/Cashier in the Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kundesar Branch, Ghazipur, district Ghazipur and was appointed in the year 1979. An advertisement was made inviting applications for appointment to the posts of officers, field supervisors etc. The petitioner's grievance is that he being already in set vice was entitled to promotion to the relevant post and filling of the ports through direct recruitment would adversely affect his rights and he will be deprived of acquiring these posts Our attention was drawn to Regulation 14 framed under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The said Regulation reads : "14. All appointments and promotions shall be made at the discretion of the Bank and no officer or employee shall have a right to be appointed or promoted to any particular post or grade." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the above-regulation there was an obligation to make appointments to the posts advertised through both sources namely, promotion and direct recruitment and since alt the posts have been thrown open exclusively to a single source, tamely, circuitment, there is an infringement of Regulation 14. It was also submitted that the above regulation was couched in very wide terms, leaving all appointments and promotions to the discretion of the Bank authorities and so it was gainly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution he question of considering the validity of the regulation on the ground of violation of Article 14 cannot be examined wholly in the abstract. The petitioner has to first satisfy us. that he was being adversely affected and that his legal rights were being jeopardised. It is not disputed that it was open to the petitioner also to apply for the pest advertised. There is no allegation that any other person similarly situate in the service had- been promoted, whereas the petitioner has been denied such promotion. On these facts the operation of the regulation does not affect the petitioner's legal rights at present and it does not result in unjust discrimination. 4. Lastly. it was vehemently urged that Regulation 14 envisages that all appointments must be made through twin sources i. e. promotion and direct recruitment. On these facts the operation of the regulation does not affect the petitioner's legal rights at present and it does not result in unjust discrimination. 4. Lastly. it was vehemently urged that Regulation 14 envisages that all appointments must be made through twin sources i. e. promotion and direct recruitment. It is Dot open to the authorities to execute any of the two processes and choose direct recruitment as the sole method of appointment we are not able to accede to this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any regulation which fixes any proportion of appointments to be made through these two sources suggested above. There is nothing in Regulation 14 which makes it incumbent on the authorities to apply bot methods of appointment. By referring to the two methods, namely, direct appointment and promotion in Regulation 14 the intention appears to have been only to categorise the two sources and not enjoin that both must be applied to every case. An attempt was made to satisfy us by referring to a letter of the Chairman of the Board that the policy of fixing a quota for 1 appointment from the two sources i. e. promotion and direct recruitment was under active consideration. So long as the policy does not ripen into some statutory regulation at present there is no provision on which the petitioner can base his claim of compelling the authorities to take recourse to appoint neat through promotion as well. Thus, on facts also discrimination of any kind has arisen at present and Regulation 14 does not confer any right on the petitioner to the aforesaid appointments by virtue of promotion. 5. There is no force in the writ petition. It is dismissed. (Petition dismissed.) After we had dictated the order learned counsel for the petitioner applied for grant of a certificate that the case was a fit one for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. The matter turns entirely on construction of Regulation 14 of the Regulations framed under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, appears to us to be quite plain. The matter turns entirely on construction of Regulation 14 of the Regulations framed under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, appears to us to be quite plain. It is impossible to read in Regulation 14 any provision that appointment must be made from both sources, namely, promotion and direct recruitment and that it must be done in accordance with certain fixed proportion applicable to the two sources respectively The case docs not raise any question of lay of general importance which may merit consideration by the Supreme Court. Hence, the certificate asked for is refused. (Certificate for filing appeal to Supreme Court,