JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Petitioners is directed against the direction contained in the circular issued by the Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank dated 18.3.2002 for following the procedure of the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules. 1988 in the matter of promotion of Scale I officers to Scale II officers of the Tripura Gramin Bank with a prayer to issue a writ directing the Tripura Gramin Bank to adopt the method of promotion in terms of the new Rules framed by the Central Govt. on 29.7.1998 contained in the circular dated 30.6.1999. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners are holding the rank of officers Scale I under the Tripura Gramin Bank which is a Bank constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and that the said Bank is sponsored by the United Bank of India. The Petitioners state that they are eligible for promotion to the rank of Officer Scale II. The appointment/promotion etc. in the Tripura Gramin Bank is regulated by the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 framed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) as per provisions of Section 29(2)(ba) of the Act. 3. The Petitioners further state that in terms of the 1988 Rules, there is no procedure laid down for promotion of Scale I officers to Scale 2 officers because at the time of framing of the said Rules, there was no such posts or designation, which was introduced later on and as a matter of fact, no promotion from Scale I officer to Scale 2 officer was ever made in the Tripura Gramin Bank under the aforesaid Rules. The Petitioners also state that a new Rules for recruitment/promotion was made by the Central Government on 29.7.1998 in which the method of recruitment/promotion from Scale I officer to scale II officer was provided and the same was reproduced by the Tripura Gramin Bank vide letter dtd. 30.6.1999. The Petitioners submit that the Chairman of Tripura Gramin Bank vide its Circular dtd. 30.6.1999. The Petitioners submit that the Chairman of Tripura Gramin Bank vide its Circular dtd. 18.3.2002 has informed that the promotion process in respect of Scale II officer would be held shortly for filling up 43 vacancies in Scale II posts and that the promotion process was to be made in accordance with the provisions of 1988 Rules. It is the case of the Petitioners that the said Circular is illegal inasmuch-as the Board of Directors of Gramin Bank has no authority or jurisdiction to change or modify the new Rules adopted for promotion of Scale II officers. The Petitioners also submit that the Respondents are under the obligation to follow the new Rules which are mandatory in nature and, as such. Circular in question is to be quashed and that an appropriate direction be issued to Tripura Gramin Bank to follow the new Rules for promotion of Scale I officer to Scale II officers. The Petitioners further contend that inasmuch as the new Rules contemplates that the number of Scale I officer to Scale II to be considered for promotion be restricted to four times the number of vacancies available, the said method is contrary to the Rules in force, and, as such, the same is liable to be declared as illegal and ab initio void. The Petitioners submit that the impugned circular is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and ultra vires, the Rules in force. The representation made by the Petitioners for not giving effect to the impugned Circular have not been disposed of till now. Hence the writ petition. 4. The Respondents 1 and 2 contested the writ petition by filing the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, the Respondent 1 submits that the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the Union of India National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development, United Bank of India and Tripura Gramin Bank have not been impleaded as Respondents. It is also submitted that Tripura Gramin Bank has not been made a party in the writ petition. The Respondents deny that the Petitioners are eligible for promotion to the Scale 2 officer for the concerned vacancies. The Respondents clarify that the "Area Manager" and "Senior Manager" are equivalent to Scale I and Scale II officers. The Counter-affidavit also denies that the Rules of 1988 do not lay down any procedure for promotion to Scale I officer to Scale n officer. The Respondents clarify that the "Area Manager" and "Senior Manager" are equivalent to Scale I and Scale II officers. The Counter-affidavit also denies that the Rules of 1988 do not lay down any procedure for promotion to Scale I officer to Scale n officer. The Respondent 1 states that National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) communicated to all sponsored Bank except Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank Limited and all Regional Rural Banks (except Kshetriya Kishan Gramin Bank) by its communication dated 17.9.1994 referring to its circular dated 20.3.1993 conveying the instructions of the Govt. of India regarding the acceptance of the working Group Report of Regional Rural Banks with certain modification. The NABARD instructed all Regional Rural Banks to attempt categorization exercise in terms of the said instmctions but directed that no promotion could be effected consequent to such categorization in the officer cadre since the recruitment and promotion Rules in that respect was still under consideration of the Government of India. The NABARD clarified that till a decision on the revised promotion and Recruitment Rules is taken, the Regional Rural Banks might undertake the promotion exercise from Scale I to Scale II officers consequent to categorization of the Branches by following the same procedure for promotion of officers from officers to senior/area Manager in the Regional Rural Bank. The Respondent No. 1 also denies that the impugned Circular dated 18.3.2002 is contrary to the Rules of the Authorities and that the Rules of 1988 have no application. It is contended by the Respondent No. 1 that 1988 Rules must be deemed to have been in existence for the purpose of promotion to the said 43 vacancies which arose when the 1988 Rules were in operation. The Respondent No. 1 also states that the Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank prepared the office note dated 8.8.1997 in regard to the categorisation of the Branches which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Tripura Gramin Bank in the 95th Board meeting held on 28.12.1994 and 100th Board meeting held on 27.11.1995 with a list of 41 upgraded branches from Scale I officers to scale II officers. The counter-affidavit further states that thereafter the Chairman place the office note before the Board of Directors regarding categorization of the 41 branches and approved the same and in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors, the Circular dated 29.9.1997 was issued by the Bank for the upgradation of 41 branches of the Bank from scale I officer to Scale n officer, as on 1.10.97 on the basis of the total business with effect from 1.10.1998. The Respondent submits that the expression "effective date" was used for the purpose of allowing the officiating allowance only for the incumbents who officiated in the said post since 1.10.1997 and who would be entitled to get officiating allowance after 1.10.1998, that is, after expiry of one year. Respondent No. 1 further avers that the NABARD vide Circular dated 30.12.1996 advised the Chairman of all Regional Rural Bank to follow the instructions as per provisions of Regulation No. 23 (vi) of the Staff Service Regulation of Public Sector Bank. According to the Respondent 1, the United Bank of India, a public sector Bank is the sponsored Bank of Tripura Gramin Bank and that as per the above instructions of NABARD, the Bank is to follow the Regulation No. 23 (vi) of the United Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 for the purpose of officiating allowance. The Respondent No. 1 submits that 41 upgraded posts of 41 Branches of Tripura Gramin Bank were thus created before the new Rules came into force and as per the instruction issued by the Central Govt., promotion to the aforesaid 41 posts would be governed by the old Rules, that is, under 1988 Rules which existed at the time of creation of the said posts and the aforesaid instruction was received on 10.7.1999 for which the Circular was issued by the Chairman on 18.03.2002. The Respondent No. 1 clarifies that before 1988 Rules came into force, two other scale n posts became vacant due to retirement on superannuation of one Sri R.R. Chakraborty and due to the death of one Basuram Debbarma which resulted in increasing the total number of vacancies to 43 before coming into force 1988 Rules. The Respondent No. 1 submits that the writ petition has no merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. The Respondent No. 1 submits that the writ petition has no merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. The Respondent No. 3 to 9 also contested the writ petition by filing their counter-affidavit. In their counter-affidavit, the Respondents 3 to 9 made several contentions which are in pari materia with the contention of the Respondent No. 1. However, two additional submissions are made on behalf of the Respondent 3 to 9. The first submission is that the Petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts by not mentioning that Tripura Gramin Bank issued letters to 129 eligible candidates in the rank of scale I officer for facing interview of selection for promotion to the post of Scale II officers. The other contention is that 41 Branches of the Tripura Gramin Bank were upgraded on 1.10.1997 due to categorisation of the forty one Branches and that the existing Manager of those Branches have been discharging higher duties on and from 1.10.97, but they have been allowed officiating allowance for discharging higher charge only from 1.10.98 that is one year after creation of posts as per sponsored Bank norms and till date, they are receiving officiating allowance. According to the private Respondents, the 41 Scale posts were created on 1.10.97 and the said Respondents also submits that the petitions have never objected to the grant of officiating allowance to the existing 41 Manager of the Tripura Gramin Bank nor have they objected to the Circular dated 18.3.02 till the date before filing of this writ petition. It is also submitted by the private Respondents that the contentions of the Petitioners that no case is pending in any Court in respect of the same subject matter, is clearly wrong. In feet, Sri Sibendra Dasgupta and four others who are the Scale I officers under the Tripura Gramin Bank instituted a Civil Suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar, Agartala on 14.7.03 and the same is pending till now and that as a result, the Petitioners mainly suppressed this vital fact in the writ petition. The private Respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. 6. The private Respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. 6. At this state, I may refer to the Order dated 29.7.03 passed by this Court in which it was ordered that this writ petition should be heard and disposed of within a month at the admission stage. The said order was passed on the basis of the agreement between the rival parties. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that I now proceed to dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage. 7. The case was listed on 26.8.03 in which Mr. B. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner No. 1 to 4 and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner No. 5. Mr. B.R. Bhattachaijee, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. T.K. Roy, learned Counsel (Advocate General, Tripura) and Mr. K. Bhattachaijee, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents 3 to 9 were heard at length. 8. Before proceeding further, it may be appropriate to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the non-joinder of necessary parties. 9. It is the contention of the Respondent 1 that the Union of India, National Bank of Agricultural and Rural Development, United Bank of India and the Tripura Gramin Bank are necessary parties in this writ petition and that because of their non-impleadment, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. In so far as the Union of India, the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development and United Bank of India are concerned, their presence in the writ petition cannot be said to be vital inasmuch as the relief claimed is basically from the Respondent 1 and that absence of the aforesaid parties cannot certainly bar this Court ftom giving complete and effective relief in respect of the subject matter of the writ petition. In other words, this is not a case in which the absence of the aforesaid parties will preclude the Court from making complete and effective adjudication of the case and, as such, the contentions of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 is rejected. In other words, this is not a case in which the absence of the aforesaid parties will preclude the Court from making complete and effective adjudication of the case and, as such, the contentions of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 is rejected. In so far as the non-impleadment of the Tripura Gramin Bank is concerned, even thought the Respondent No. 1 is described as the Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank, Head Office, Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala thana, Dist. West Tripura, the intention of the Petitioners is clear that it is the Tripura Gramin Bank against which the writ petition was filed and, as such, the defect is clearly one of form and such technical plfca cannot be made a ground for non-suiting the Petitioner. 10. Having disposed of the preliminary objection, let me now proceed to examine the case on merits. In the State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 419 , the Apex Court relying upon Y.V. Rangaiah's case reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 has laid down as under: The post which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled up in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. 11. No decision of the Apex Court contrary to the aforesaid proposition of law has been cited by the Petitioner at the Bar. In view of the above proposition of law, the point for determination in this case is whether the aforesaid 43 vacancies of Scale II officer posts became vacant prior to or after 1988 Rules came into force. Therefore, the findings on this aspect of the matter is decisive for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy involved in this writ petition. It is the contention of the Petitioners as revealed in the rejoinder that prior to 1.10.98, no officer was officiating in Scale n posts and that the posts of scale n officer came to exist only from 1.10.98 and not from any earlier date, and, as such, the promotion process should be made under 1998 Rules and not by 1988 Rules. It is further contended by the Petitioners that the Respondents have no authority to make promotion as per 1988 Rules. It is further contended by the Petitioners that the Respondents have no authority to make promotion as per 1988 Rules. In support of their contention that there was no officer of Tripura Gramin Bank officiating in Scale II posts prior to 1.10.1998, the Petitioner referred to the letter dtd. 19.10.98 at Annexure E written by the Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank to all Branches etc. of the Tripura Gramin Bank. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank vehemently submits that the post of Scale n officers came to be created on 1.10.97 when 41 Branches of Tripura Gramin Bank were upgraded on the basis of their total business. Learned Counsel submits that the expression "effective date" was merely used for the purpose of allowing officiating allowance for the incumbents who officiated in the scale II posts since 1.10.1997, but they were entitled to officiating allowance since 1998 i.e. after expiry of one year. Learned Counsel explained that categorisation of the Branches were made on the basis of average aggregate deposit and advance of small branch when increased to Rs. 1.5 crore and above, but not below 7.5 crore during the last two years and such branch were upgraded to medium/main branches at District/State Capital and correspondingly, the incumbents also stand upgraded to Scale II officer. Learned Counsel for the Banks further submits that by the office note dtd. 8.8.1997, 41 branches from Scale I to Scale II category have been allowed to be categorised vide Annexure- 2 of the counter- affidavit of the Bank. Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 9 refers to paragraph 20 of the Counter-affidavit and submits that existing Manager of the said 41 Branches have been discharging their duties on and from 1.10.1997 due to their categorisation, but they have been allowed officiating allowance for discharging higher charge only from 1.10.98 that is one year after creation of the posts and till date they were receiving the officiating allowance. According to the Petitioner, the payment of officiating allowance for the period ending 1.10.1998 clearly shows that such posts were created on 1.10.97 and not on 1.10.98. 12. In the absence of any definite evidence to show that the posts were created, this Court has to draw necessary inference and reach proper conclusion from the documents produced by both the parties. 12. In the absence of any definite evidence to show that the posts were created, this Court has to draw necessary inference and reach proper conclusion from the documents produced by both the parties. Annexure 2 of the Counter-affidavit of the Respondent No. 1 shows that recommendation of the Tripura Gramin Bank for categorisation of the Branches have been approved by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 28.12.1994 and 27.11.1995 which were communicated by the Sponsored Bank on 23.7.1997. In the same office note, it was stated that following the approval of the categorisation, 41 branches from Scale I to Scale II category have also been allowed to be categorised. However, office note further shows that the effect would be from the date of Circular of the Bank and the officiating allowance if payable will be as per NABARD guidelines dated 30.12.96. Annexure 3 of the same counter-affidavit shows that the Chairman of the Tripura Gramin Bank upgraded 41 branches of Tripura Gramin Bank from Scale I to Scale II category as on 1.10.1997 on the basis of their total business. In the next paragraph, the Chairman of the said Bank declared that the categorisation was effective from 1.10.98. The question is whether this categorisation date can be said to be the date on which posts of Scale n officers became vacant. Is the date of categorisation deemed to be the date on which the vacancies for the posts of Scale II officer arose? The Counsel for the Bank submits that this cannot be for the simple reason that by 1.10.1997, the Scale I officers have already officiated as Scale II officers and that it was only on 1.10.1998 that they started getting officiating allowance, for the preceding one year period commencing from 1.10.1997. According to the learned Counsel for the Bank, the moment the posts were created. Scale I officers were allowed to officiate as scale II officers but they were allowed to enjoy officiating allowance with effect from 1.10.1997. They were not automatically filled upon regular basis and that one year period was allowed to expire before the officers concerned could get officiating allowance for officiating in such posts. 13. Mr. Scale I officers were allowed to officiate as scale II officers but they were allowed to enjoy officiating allowance with effect from 1.10.1997. They were not automatically filled upon regular basis and that one year period was allowed to expire before the officers concerned could get officiating allowance for officiating in such posts. 13. Mr. Lodh, learned Senior Counsel for the private Respondents 3 to 9 submits that the existing Manager of those branches have been discharging their higher duties of Scale II officers on and from 1.10.97 but they were allowed to enjoy the officiating allowance for discharging this higher charge only from 1.10.1998, that is, one year after creation of the posts as per sponsored Bank and till date they have been receiving this officiating allowance. This shows, according to the learned Counsel for the private Respondents, that the vacancies of 41 Scale II officers posts was created on 1.10.97. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently denies that any officer was officiating in scale II posts prior to 1998. As already mentioned earlier, by Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, the said 41 Branches from Scale I to Scale II category have been allowed to be categorized. It was, however, made clear that the effective date would be from the date of circulation by the Bank and the officiating allowance, if payable, would be as per NABARD guidelines. It is significant to note that the said document envisages the payment of officiating allowance. The question of payment of officiating allowance will arise only if and when as Bank officers are allowed to officiate in scale II posts. The practice of officiating appointment in Government service or other institutions is not alien to service jurisprudence. By Annexure 3 to the same counter-affidavit. It was categorically stated that the 41 branches of Tripura Gramin Bank from Scale I to Scale II as on 1.10.97 on the basis of their total business. This circular has been issued in pursuance of the Annexure 2 when the said circular has unambiguously stated that the 41 Branches had been upgraded from Scale I to Scale II as on 1.10.1997. The subsequent words "The categorisation is effective from 1.10.98" cannot confuse the fact that the post of Scale II officers were created with effect from 1.10.97 by making provision for officiating appointment. The subsequent words "The categorisation is effective from 1.10.98" cannot confuse the fact that the post of Scale II officers were created with effect from 1.10.97 by making provision for officiating appointment. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the submission of Mr. A.M. Lodh, the learned senior Counsel for private Respondents that the existing Managers have been on the duties of scale II officers since 1.10.97 though they were allowed to enjoy officiating allowance only from 1.10.98 i.e. one year the creation of posts. Accordingly, I hold that the posts of Scale II officers were created or became vacant with effect from 1.10.1997. 14. Once it is held that the post were created prior to 1.10.1998, it follows that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the R. Dayal's case (supra), the Respondent-Bank can validly fill up the said vacancies according to 1988 Rules. However, it is contended by Mr. B. Das, learned Senior Counsel that there is no procedure laid down by the 1988 Rules for promotion of Scale II officers inasmuch as such posts were non-existant earlier. In reply, learned Counsel for the Bank submits that by the letters dated 17.9.1994 (Annexure 1), dated 30.12.96 (Annexure-4). dated 21.6.99 (Annexure-5) and dated 1.7.99 (Annexure-5), it was authorised/instructed to follow the 1983 Rules for the impugned promotion process. On going through the aforesaid documents. There can be no doubt that the Respondent-Bank had been duly instructed to fill up the said vacancies in accordance with the 1988 Rules. The next contention of Mr. B. Das is that the Board of Directors of the Bank has no authority/jurisdiction to change/modify the aforesaid Rules and adopt a method other than those incorporated in the said 1988 by the Central Government. Admittedly, there is no provision in the 1988 Rules for promotion of Scale I Officers to Scale II Officers since at the time of framing the 1988 Rules, such posts were nonexistent. It is an admitted position that the Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the Bank are framed by the Central Government. Admittedly, there is no provision in the 1988 Rules for promotion of Scale I Officers to Scale II Officers since at the time of framing the 1988 Rules, such posts were nonexistent. It is an admitted position that the Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the Bank are framed by the Central Government. However, the letter No. F.No. 8(6)/93/RRB, dated 15.6.1999 (Annexure-5 series) reveals that the NABARD and the United Bank of India were advised by the Central Government that the vacancies which existed prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the Rules prevailing prior to the amendments and that the Sponsor Banks/Regional Rural Banks should be advised accordingly immediately. It is also an admitted position that the NABARD is the controlling Bank of the Tripura Gramin Bank whereas the United Bank of India is the sponsor Bank of the Tripura Gramin Bank. From this, it is obvious that the Respondent Gramin Bank can be said to be duly authorised by the Central Government. In the case of the State of Orissa v. Mamtarani Sahoo reported in (1998) 8 SCC 753 , it is held by the Apex Court that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already filmed. In the instant case, the procedures for filling up the posts of Scale n Officers contained in the aforesaid instructions cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1988 Rules inasmuch as the posts of Scale II Officers are equivalent to the posts of Area Managers/Sr. Managers of the concerned Bank, the procedure for promotion whereof is governed by the provisions of 1988 Rules. In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr. B. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners that in the absence of modification of the 1988 Rules in this behalf by the Central Government for promotion of Scale II Officers, the promotion process cannot be made in accordance with the 1988 Rules, does not hold water. Accordingly, I hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned action of the Respondent-Bank warranting the interference of this Court. 15. Accordingly, I hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned action of the Respondent-Bank warranting the interference of this Court. 15. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and is hereby dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are to bear costs throughout. The interim order. The interim orders dated 25.7.2003, 28.7.2003, 29.7.03 and 26.8.03 shall stand vacated. Petition dismissed