JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. By these writ petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the promotion of the private Respondents to the next promotional post, on the basis of their selection by the Selection Committee in the Meeting purportedly held on 10,11 and 16.12.2003. 2. In W.P. (C) No.48 of 2004: The Petitioner, who is serving as Middle Management Grade-I (MMG-I) has challenged the selection of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 and their promotion to Senior Management Grade-II (SMG-II). An Employment Notice dated 9.10.03 was issued by the Managing Director of Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, intimating all concerned about the initiation of the process for selection and promotion to different grades of the banks including promotion from MMG-I to SMG-II and Assistant Grade-II to Assistant Grade-I. The Selection Committee, thereafter, conducted the selection of candidates for promotions, in Seniority Channel, as well as the merit channel. In the said selection, the Petitioner was a candidate for promotion from MMG-II to SMG-I against seniority channel. The Selection Committee selected the present Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for promotion to SMG-II against Seniority Channel and placed the present Petitioner in the wait list. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 49 of 2004: The Petitioner was a candidate for promotion from Assistant Grade-II to Assistant Grade-I, whose case was also considered by the Selection Committee, pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice dated 9.10.03 against the Seniority Channel. The Selection Committee selected the Respondents No. 4--18 for promotion to Assistant Grade-I, pursuant to the aforesaid selection. 4. The Respondents No. 4 & 5 in W.P. (C) 48/04 and Respondents No. 4--18 in W.P.(C) 49/04 were promoted to the rank of SMG-II and Assistant Grade-I, respectively, vide orders of promotions both dated 22.1.04. Hence the present writ petitions before this Court. 5. I have heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the petitions, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 in both the writ petitions and Mr. N. Sailo assisted by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(C) 48/04 and Respondents No. 3--18 W.P. (C) 49/04, as well as Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 4 & 5 in W.P. (C) 48/04. N. Sailo assisted by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(C) 48/04 and Respondents No. 3--18 W.P. (C) 49/04, as well as Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 4 & 5 in W.P. (C) 48/04. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, both the matters are taken for hearing and disposal analogously since the disputes involved in both the writ petitions are identical. 6. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the Management of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Limited has framed Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Amendment) Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 1995 Rules) laying down the procedure for selection of candidate for promotion to different grades of officers in the Bank. Appendix-III to the said rules provides for promotion from Assistant Grade-II to Assistant Grade-I from Seniority Channel only and Appendix-VII of the said rules provides for promotion from MMG-I to SMG-II from two channels namely, Seniority Channel and Merit Channel and fixing quota which is 50% for each. According to the learned Counsel, the marks are also allotted for the purpose of seniority, performance and interview in the said Appendix-VI appended to the rules. Therefore, the Selection Committee is bound to adhere to the said rules, as well as the marks allotted for the seniority, performance as well as interview. According to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, the Selection Committee, without their being any amendment to the rules, has allotted 20 marks for interview against 10 marks allotted under the rules, in cases of both the writ petitions i.e., for the purpose of promotion from MMG-I to SMG-II, as well as Assistant Grade-II to Assistant Grade-I, therefore, there was infraction of the Rules by the Selection Committee and hence, the selection made by the Selection Committee is illegal being contrary to the provision of 1995 Rules, consequently the orders of promotion of the private Respondents are bad in law. Mr. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Selection Committee has no power and authority to change the Rules and it is for the Executive Committee or Board of Directors of the Bank to take a decision on the amendment of the Rules by virtue of Rule 4 of 1995 Rules, unless such Rules are amended in terms of the provision of 1995 Rules and such amendment is approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS), the Selection Committee cannot adopt a procedure different from the procedure laid down under the Rules. 7. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, relying on the affidavit in opposition filed on their behalf as well as the records produced before this Court, has submitted that though, before holding of the selection by the Selection Committee, the 1995 Rules was not amended either by the Executive Committee or by the Board of Directors, the Selection Committee has decided to allow 20 marks for the purpose of interview and the said decision was approved by the Board while approving the proceedings of the Selection Committee and the same was also approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS). The further submission of the learned Counsel is that though, there was no written decision of the Board of the Bank, such decision was taken orally and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also orally approved such amendment to the Rules regarding allotment for 20 marks for interview. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that since all the candidates were informed about the allotment of 20 marks for interview, the Petitioners, after appearing before the Selection Committee for selection, cannot subsequently challenge the selection process. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Bank, however, by producing the records of the minutes of the Selection Proceedings has submitted that though, the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting dated 19.12.03 has approved the Selection Committee Proceedings held on 10, 11 and 16.12.03, the record does not reflect holding of any meeting by the Selection Committee on 11 & 16.12.03. The learned Counsel has also fairly submitted that the record also does not revealed that the candidates were informed about the 20 marks allotted for interview, which is contrary to the 1995 Rules. 8. Mr. The learned Counsel has also fairly submitted that the record also does not revealed that the candidates were informed about the 20 marks allotted for interview, which is contrary to the 1995 Rules. 8. Mr. N. Sailo, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(C) 48/04 and Respondents No. 3--18 in W.P.(C) 49/04 has submitted that the Selection Committee has rightly selected the candidates for the purpose of promotion to the next promotional post on the basis of their performance in the interview, as well as their seniority position in the respective grades and the Petitioners having participated in the selection process, they cannot question the selection of the selected candidates for the purpose of promotion to the next higher grade. 9. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 in W.P. (C) 48/04 has submitted that since the dispute in the present writ petitions relates to the promotion against the Seniority Channel only, the promotion has to be made on the basis of the Seniority-cum-Merit, therefore, as soon as the senior person get the required marks as laid down under the Rules, promotion has to be effected on the basis of seniority. According to the learned Counsel, since the writ Petitioners have not disputed the Respondent's seniority position, they were rightly selected and promoted to the next promotional post. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that as the Selection Committee has adopted the procedure, which has been followed in respect of all the candidates, the Petitioners cannot challenge the said procedure having participated in the selection process. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings, as well as the records produced before me by Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank Management. 11. The Managing Director of the Bank issued the Employment Notice dated 9.10.03 for the purpose of selection of candidates for the promotion to the next promotional post including the post in SMG-II and Assistant Grade-I. In the said employment notice, it was made known to all the candidates, that the person who fulfill all the requirements mentioned in the 1995 Rules will be considered for promotion and the promotion of Officers/Staff will be made as per the existing provision of the said Rules. Appendix-UI and Appendix-VII to 1995 Rules stipulate the mode of selection and also the marks allotted under different headings such as seniority, performance and interview. It is evident from the said Appendixes that 10 marks have been allotted for interview against 50(fifty) total marks. It appears from the proceeding of the Selection Committee meeting held on 10.12.03 that the Selection Committee has decided to allot 20 marks for the purpose of interview in place of 10 marks fixed under the Rules. It is the case of the Respondents Bank that the Selection Committee has decided to increase the marks in view of the oral decision by the Board of Directors, as well as oral approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to that effect, thereby amending the provision contained in Appendix-El & VII to the 1995 Rules. It is the further case of the Respondent Bank that the allotment of 20 marks for interview was made known for the candidates including the Petitioners, but the learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank has failed to show anything from the records in support of that contention and has in fact admitted that the candidates were not informed. The learned Counsel has also failed to produce anything in support of the contention that any decisions was taken by the Board amending the Appendix-Ill or Appendix-VII of 1995 Rules, as well as the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as those were the oral decisions. 12. Rule 4 of 1995 Rules provides that the Executive Committee of the Board shall be competent to modify or change any of the clauses of the Service Rules as they may deem fit from time to time subject to the approval of RCS. Rule 19 of the said Rules provides that promotion to all grades in different categories shall be subject to availability of vacancy, made in accordance with the Rules of promotion framed by the Board/Executive Committee, from time to time, and on the basis of seniority, qualification, efficiency and performance of the employee concerned (Appendix-I to Appendix-X). Rule 19 of the said Rules provides that promotion to all grades in different categories shall be subject to availability of vacancy, made in accordance with the Rules of promotion framed by the Board/Executive Committee, from time to time, and on the basis of seniority, qualification, efficiency and performance of the employee concerned (Appendix-I to Appendix-X). It is thus evident that unless the provisions contained in Appendix-I to Appendix-X are amended by the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors in terms of the provision contained in Rule 4 of 1995 Rules, and unless such proposed amendment is approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the stipulation contained in such Appendixes, which are framed by virtue of Rule 19 of 1995 of the Rules, have to be followed. In the instant case, as already discussed above, 10 marks was allotted for interview under the Rules, but the Selection Committee has decided to allot 20 marks for interview, which is contrary to the provision of Appendix-Ill and VII appended to the 1995 Rules. The stand of the Bank, that allotment of marks for interview vis-a-vis the provision contained in 1995 Rules was decided to be amended by the Board of Directors orally, before the selection was held and such decision was orally approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, cannot be accepted as the Board of Directors' resolution has to be in writing, which must be reflected in the proceeding of the Board of Directors and the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also has to be in writing. There is no question of taking any oral decision or giving any oral approval by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Merely because the RCS was a member of the Selection Committee, even assuming he was present in such proceeding it does not amount to giving approval to the amendment of the Rules, because there is no such resolution of the Board of Directors or Executive Committee for change of the Rules. 13. From the records made available to this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, it appears that though, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 19.12.03 has approved the Selection Committee proceeding held on 10th, 11th and 16 December, 2003, there is absolutely no proceeding of Selection Committee meeting held on 11.12.2003 & 16.12.2003. 13. From the records made available to this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, it appears that though, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 19.12.03 has approved the Selection Committee proceeding held on 10th, 11th and 16 December, 2003, there is absolutely no proceeding of Selection Committee meeting held on 11.12.2003 & 16.12.2003. What available on records in the proceeding dated 10.12.03, wherein the selection was made by allowing 20 marks for interview and in the said meeting the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was also not present. 14. From the proceeding of the Selection Committee meeting held on 10.12.03, it is thus evident that the Committee has allotted 20 marks for interview, though under the Rules, the marks allotted for interview was 10. Unless the Rule is amended by the competent authority, the Selection Committee is bound by the Rules and it has to make the selection on the basis of the Rules only, as it has no power to amend the rule and therefore, the Selection Committee has no power and authority to make selection contrary to the provision contained in the Rules. As held above, the Selection Committee has allotted 20 marks for the interview against 10 marks allotted under the Rules for that purpose and thereby has conducted itself contrary to the provision contained in 1995 Rules. Moreover, as held above, though the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 19.12.03 has approved the selection Committee Proceeding held on 10th, 11th and 16th December, 2003, the records of selection does not reveal holding of any proceeding of the Selection Committee on 11th and 16th December 2003, which creates doubt about the selection itself. The process of selection and the manner in which the selection was made by the Selection Committee is, therefore, in contravention of the provision contained in 1995 Rules and hence, the consequent resolution of the Board of Director in its meeting dated 19.12.03 accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee, as well as the approval of the RCS dated 13.1.04 approving the proceeding of the Board of Directors dated 19.12.03, in so far as it relates to the promotion of Respondents No. 4 & 5 in W.P. (C) 48/04 and Respondents No. 4 -18 in W.P. (C) 49/04, are illegal, being contrary to the Rules. Hence, the selection of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 in the W.P.(C). Hence, the selection of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 in the W.P.(C). 48/04 and Respondents No. 4--18 in the W.P. (C) 49/04 and the orders of promotion dated 22.1.04 to the posts of SMG-II and Assistant Grade-I, respectively, are set aside. The Bank Management is directed to undertake the process of selection afresh by considering the cases of eligible candidates, who comes within the zone of consideration, subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria and on the basis of the provision, contained in 1995 Rules and in terms of the Employment Notice dated 9.10.03 at an early date, if so advised. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed. No costs.