Judgment Ravi S.dhavan, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against an order dated 24th July, 2003 passed on CWJC No. 10946 of 1997 : Subhash Kumar Verma V/s. United Bank of India and Ors. 2. The learned judge declined to grant relief, in effect, quashing the promotion which had been processed as a consequence of an interview board which was selecting candidates for promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officers Cadre (Junior Management Scale-l). 3. One of the candidates, who apparently did not make the grade, the petitioner Subhash Kumar Verma, having participated in the game and having seen the result of the game now wants that the rule of the game be changed. If he had objection to the board whatever be the reason he should have objected before he went forthe interview. 4. The Court did inquire on what exactly may be the objection on the three members board constituted, amongst them two from the general category and one from the reserved category. Whether it was qualification or reservation. The answer received by the Court was it was both. 5. As old habits die hard so do prejudices linger. The constitution of the interview board ensures that if a candidate from the reserved category is to be interviewed then at least one member of the board will be from the reserved class. 6. The regulation of the Bank which is being attacked is reproduced: "23, The Interview Board will consist of 3 officers two from the Bank not below the rank of Scale-IV and one from the B.S.R.B. or other nationalised Banks. The Board for interviewing the candidates appearing against the reserved category of posts for SC/ST will include a member belonging to SC/ST community holding a post even one stage/scale higher than the post to which promotion is to be made as nominated by the Bank who will replace one official of the Bank in the Board." 7. The contention is that the candidate from the reserved category had the lower scale Class III not the higher scale Class IV and, thus, the constitution of the Board was illegal. 8. The arguments submitted is that if a candidate with a lesser scale was to be included then the only recourse available was to ensure that a candidate of the requisite scale is on the board or otherwise the regulation itself should have been changed. 8. The arguments submitted is that if a candidate with a lesser scale was to be included then the only recourse available was to ensure that a candidate of the requisite scale is on the board or otherwise the regulation itself should have been changed. In so far as the latter aspect is concerned a rule is meant to be worked not destroyed on the drop of a hat. On the pleadings exchanged on the writ petition the explanation given is that the candidate from the reserved category of the scale, as the respondents indicate, was not available and, thus, the candidate from the reserved class joined the board as a representative from the Banking Service Recruitment Board. 9. A reading of this regulation clearly implies that in so far as the two members from the general category are concerned they will not be below the rank of scale-IV. This is the qualification for these two members. In so far as the other member is concerned a latitude is contained in the rule. Already in so far as the present case is concerned, a member from this particular scale was not available. The rule does not mention the scale for the member to be constituted for the reserved class. Thus, no error was committed. As to why a member was included from the Banking Service Recruitment Board from a lower scale the reason given is that such a member from the higher scale was not available. In any case the rule is not so rigid so as to exclude a candidate from the reserved class, if from the same scale as for other two members is not available. 10. There is no error in the order of the learned judge on the petition. 11. This appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.