NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) IN these Writ Appeals what falls for decision is the validity of the method and procedure adopted by the Management of Kolar gramin Bank in selecting and promoting respondents 2 to 12 herein to the post of Field Supervisors. When the validity of their appointment to the post of Field Supervisors was called in question in Writ Petition No. 13400 of 1991 by the appellants herein and certain others, a learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in any one of the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners dismissed the Writ Petition by Judgment and Order dated 17th of April, 1998. Hence, these writ appeals by the aggrieved writ petitioners, six in number. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case be stated briefly are as under. The appellants at the relevant point of time were working as junior Clerks in the establishment of the Bank. The next promotiona post for Junior Clerks is the post of Senior Clerk 50% of. posts in the cadre of Field Supervisors are required to be filled by way of promotion from the cadres of Senior and Junior Clerks in terms of the statutory Regulations governing recruitment to that post. On 1-1-1990 the Bank's Management issued employment notification to fill 11 posts of Field Supervisors. The Management after processing the claims of the appellants herein, the other writ petitioners as well as contesting respondents issued memorandum on 26-11-1990 whereunder respondents 2 to 12 were promoted as field Supervisors. The validity of selection and appointment of the respondents 2 to 12 was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition no. 13400 of 1991. ( 3 ) SRI K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellantsat the threshold would maintain that though under the relevant statutory rules the post of Field Supervisors has to be filled by the method known as 'seniority-cum-merit', actually the Management treated that post as the selection post and without giving any weightage to the seniority, but only on the basis of relative'and comparative merit, selections were made and on that count itself, the selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 12 is liable to be quashed. Sri Subba Rao also contended that learned Single judge erred in law in placing reliance on the Judgment of the supreme Court in SRI JAGATHIGOWDA,c. N. AND OTHERS vs chairman CAUVERY GRAMINA BANK AND OTHERS, without appreciating the facts of that case. Be that as it may, Sri Subba rao would maintain that, that judgment of the Supreme Court came to be considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court later in B. V. SIVAIAH AND OTHERS ETC. vs K. ADDANKI BABU and OTHERS, and having considered that Judgment, the Supreme court has laid down that if a post has to be filled by, 'senioritycum-merit' method along with the appraisal of performances of candidates who come under zone of consideration, the recruiting authority should prescribe a 'standard minimum' in order to bring in only required number of eligible candidates from the feeder cadre so as to screen them further for promotion by adopting 'seniority-cum-merit' method. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri Rajagopal, learned Counsel for thecontesting respondents would contend that the precise question now raised by the appellants was not raised by them in the Writ Petition and, therefore, such a plea could not be permitted to be raised at the appellate stage. Sri Rajagopal would maintain that appellants are estopped from raising such contention for the first time in the appeal placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in university OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY of COCHIN vs N. S. KANJOONJAMMA AND OTHERS, Sri rajagopal would also contend that for no fault of the contesting respondents they were appointed to the post of Field Supervisors nearly 13 years back and since then they have been in continuous service in that post and, therefore, at this distance of time, it would be totally unjust and inequitable to interfere with their promotion even in the event of the Court coming to a conclusion that the selection and appointment of the contesting respondents in the year 1990 to the post of Field Supervisor was irregular or illegal. Thirdly, sri Rajagopal would point out that during the pendency of the writ proceedings, appellants 1 to 3 were promoted to the post of Field supervisor with effect from 22-06-2002 and in all probability even the remaining appellants might have been promoted by this time and in that view of the matter also, it is not a fit case where this court should step in under Article 226 and interfere with the promotions made nearly 13 years back. According to Sri Rajagopal, such a course is just and proper not only for the reasons stated by him but also for the fact that the service regulations were subsequently amended in the year 1998, and the procedure envisaged under 1998 rules is substantially different from the earlier procedure governing appointment to the post of Field Supervisor sri K. Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel for the Bank's Management would reiterate the contentions advanced by Sri Rajagopal and support the order of the learned Single Judge. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the onlyquestion that arises for decision-making is whether the selection and appointment of the contesting respondents 2 to 12 to the post of Field Supervisors vide Order dated 26-11-1990 is in conformity with the recruitment rules governing the post of Field Supervisors. ( 6 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of theregional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (Act 21 of 1976), read with Section 17 thereof, the Central Government, after consultation with the national bank and the Sponsor Banks specified in the First Schedule to the Rules has enacted the rules called the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) rules, 1988 (for short 'the Rules ). The Rules came into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazettee, that is to say, with effect from 28-9-1988. Schedule II to the Rules contain the particulars of different categories of posts which are required to be filled either by direct recruitment or by way of promotion. The Rules mandate that the direct recruitment and promotions should be effected in terms of and in conformity with the provisions contained in Schedule II. The recruitment to the post of Field Supervisor is dealt with by Schedule II, at Item No. 5. It reads as follows: