T. SEN, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the three petitioners have challenged the entire process of selection said to have been adopted by the Respondent No. 1 and/or its management in respect of the promotions conferred upon and/or granted to the private Respondent nos. 4 to 16 on the post of scale-II officers (. e. , from J. R. Management grade to Middle Management Grade) vide promotion order dated 25. 8. 05 as contained in annexure P/5/1. The Petitioners have also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to resort to a fresh selection procedure following the principles of seniority cum merit. ( 2 ) LET it be recorded that at the very outset Mr. Kalyan bandyopadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised only two points in support of the writ petition and they were as follows: (a) that notwithstanding the criteria as laid down in the Regional rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other employees) Rules, 1998 and with special reference to Rule 2 (d) thereof, the Respondents have not followed the principles of seniority-cum-merit while granting the impugned promotion but have resorted to the pelicy and/or principles of merit-cum- seniority; and (b) that contrary to Rule 2 (f), the Committee referred to therein started functioning only at the stage of the interview and was constituted after the written tests were over and therefore, the same was in total violation of the Rules. ( 3 ) BASED oh the aforementioned two points Mr. Bandyopadhyay has argued that in view of such statutory violations, the entire process of selection becomes non est and vitiated in the eye of law. ( 4 ) Mr. Bandyopadhyay has taken this Court through various paragraphs of the writ petition and upon reading the pleadings, it is evident that the 1998 Rules were framed by the Government of India, ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) and the same came to be promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government under section 29 read with section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Annexure P1 appended to the writ petition is equivalent to annexure R1 of the affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent/bank (. Annexure P1 appended to the writ petition is equivalent to annexure R1 of the affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent/bank (. e. the respondent No. 1) and it shows, inter alia, that the Notification was published in the Extraordinary gazette vide Statutory Order No. 642e dated 29. 7. 98. The said Notification was circulated to all Branches of the said Bank and all Departments at Head Office by their Circular no. NGB/pd/ 837/99 dated 5. 1. 1999. This Circular and the relevant portions of the main Notification Including the relevant portions of the iiird Schedule appehded thereto are quoted hereunder from pages 36, 38 and 44 to 47 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent No. 1 (Bank) page-36 Nadia Gramin Bank head Office Krishnanagar, Nadia personal Department circular Letter No. NGB/pd/837/99 Date: 05. 01. 99 all Branches all Departments at Head Office. Re: Regional Rural Bank-Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees-Rules-1998 government of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi have notified the appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees Rules 1998, vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification - Statutory Order No. 642e dated 29th July, 1998 which has been approved by the Board of Directors in its 98th Meeting held on 27. 10. 98. We forward a copy of the same for your information. It may please be brought to the notice of staff-members of your Branch/ department. Encl: As stated. Sd/- chairman relevant portion of the Introductory paragraph of the Notification to be published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary part II section 3-sub-section (ii) government of India ministry of Finance department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) new Delhi dated the 29. 7. 1998 notification s. C. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), read with section 17 thereof and in supersession of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, after consultation with the National Bank and the Sponsor Banks specified in the second Schedule to these rules, hereby makes the following rules, namely: 1. Short title and commencement: - (1) These rule may be called the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998. Short title and commencement: - (1) These rule may be called the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. Relevant porticns of Schedule III 2. a) Name of post scale II Officer b) classification group 'a' c) source of appointment 100% by promotion d) whether promotion to be made on seniority basis or seniority-cum-basis promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit e) eligibility officer holding post for either years as an officer on regular basis in the Regional Rural Bank shall be considered for promotion in scale II post in that bank: provided that no officer shall be considered for promotion unless he has been confirmed in the feeder grade post: provided further that the Board may, with the prior approval National Bank, relax the qualifying service for a period not exceeding two years, if eligible officers are not available. Note: I) The officers eligible for promotion to the post of Area Managers/senior Managers/officers Scale II on or before publication of this notification, shall continue to be considered for promotion to Scale II officer post. II) The service of the incumbents, who are holding the post eligible for promotion before publication of this notification, shall continue to be counted for the purpose of promotion to the Scale II officer post. f) mode of Selection the selection of the candidate shall be made by the committee on the basis of written test, interview and assessment of Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding five years as an officer in scale- 1 / Field supervisor. g) composition of committee the committee (for considering promotion) shall consist of the following persons, namely - i) the Chairman of the concerned Regional Rural Bank- Chairman ii) A director nominated by the Sponsor Bank-Member iii) A director nominated by the National Bank-Member note: If none of the members of the Committee belongs to Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes, the Board may nominate a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes as an additional member and such person shall participate in the process of selection by the concerned Committee. h) reckoning of the minimum eligibility the minimum eligibility in term of the number of years of service for promotion shall be reckoned as on the 1st April of the year in which the vacancy is expected to arise or has actually arisen i) number of candidates to be considered for promotion the number of candidates to be considered for promotion from officer scale I to officer scale II shall be restricted to four times the number of vacancies available for promotion. j) selection process for promotion the selection shall be on the basis of Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks given below. A) Written test 60 marks b) Interview 20 marks c) Performance Appraisal 20 marks reports Total marks 100 marks a) written test (60 marks) the candidate shall be require to appear for written test comprising of two parts viz. Part (A) covering Banking Law and practice of Banking and Part (B) covering Credit Policy, Credit Management including Priority Sector, Economics and Management. 60 marks allotted to written test shall be further divided as under: part 'a' 30 marks Part 'b' 30 marks a list of only those candidates, who secure a minimum of 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall be called for interview. B) interview (20 marks) there shall be no minimum qualifying marks for the interview. C) performance appraisal reports (20 marks) performance appraisal Reports for the preceding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion. [sic/underlinings supplied by this Court] ( 5 ) UPON a further perusal of the aforementioned Rules which were published in the manner stated above,. e. under the Extraordinary gazette Notification through Statutory Order No. 642e dated 29. 7. 98 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and precision as the 1998 Rules), it is evident under the IIIrd Schedule appended thereto, the appointment of a Scale II Officer, which is a Group-A post, has to be made one hundred percent by promotion and such promotion was to be made on the basis of a seniority cum merit. ( 6 ) MR. ( 6 ) MR. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in terms of Rule 2 (d) therefore, there cannot be any other Interpretation than to conclude that the entire process of appointment to the post of a Scale II Officer was to be made by exclusively following the principles of seniorlty-cum-merit. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel submits that the aforementioned criterion of seniority-cum-merit postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. ( 8 ) IN support of the aforementioned contention, learned counsel relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of B. V. Siuaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. , reported in (1998)6 SCC 720 . For the same proposition, learned counsel also relies upon another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Harigovbind Yadav v. Rewa Siddhi Gramin Bank and Ors. , reported in (2006)6 SCC 145 . In support of the same contention the learned counsel also relied upon a Judgment of this Court passed by a Division bench in the case of Chairman Sagar Gramin Bank and Ors. v. Manick lal Bhowmick and Ors. , reported in 2005 (3) CHN 238 . ( 9 ) I am afraid, none of the aforementioned Judgments can be said to apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case primarily for the reason that in all the three cases referred to and/or relied upon by the learned counsel, the Rule that was under consideration was the 1998 Rules and not the 1988 Rules. 9a. The 1988 Rules were known as the "regional Rural Banks (Appointment of Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988. The relevant portion of the said 1988 Rules have been quoted in Various parts of the Judgment in Sivaiah case (supra) and it is seen that for purposes of seniority, a particular set of marks were earmarked over and above marks for interview, performance, etc. This would be evident upon reading paragraphs 20 and 21 of Sivatah's case which was followed and reiterated in Hargovind Yadau's case (supra) as well as in the case before this Court which was considered by the Division bench referred to above. This would be evident upon reading paragraphs 20 and 21 of Sivatah's case which was followed and reiterated in Hargovind Yadau's case (supra) as well as in the case before this Court which was considered by the Division bench referred to above. ( 10 ) IN the ease at hand, no separate marks have been earmarked for seniority at all. Rule 2 (j) of the 1998 Rules (. e. , the Rules with which this case is concerned) clearly lays down that for being selected, a person would have to sit for a written test which will contain 60 marks and then, he will have to qualify in an interview containing 20 marks and subsequently, the Performance Appraisal Reports (for which 20 marks have been earmarked) will be looked into. It is also made clear under the same Rules that only those candidates who secure a minimum of 40 percent marks in each of the parts of the written tests (. e. Part-A and Part-B referred to therein) shall be called for interview and that there shall be no minimum qualifying marks for the interview. ( 11 ) THUS on a comparison of 1988 Rules with the 1998 Rules, it is evident that while the former provided for a certain percentage of marks for seniority, the latter did not keep aside any marks for seniority at all. On the contrary, the 1998 Rules superseded the 1988 rules as is evident from the very preamble of the Notification itself and which has been quoted above. ( 12 ) MERELY because at Rule 2 (d), the authors of the Rule have stated that promotion shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the same, by itself, cannot mean that under the 1998 Rules, seniority has to be given weightage in supersession of merit. ( 13 ) AS has already been observed earlier but at the risk of repetition, it is reiterated once again that no where in the 1998 Rules, separate marks have been earmarked for seniority and therefore, the obvious conclusion is that seniority will get its place at the stage of calling the candidates and/or short listing them from amongst a set of eligible candidates. It is at this stage that seniors and others, in order of their respective seniority, will be called and they cannot be ignored but subsequently, even such seniors must pass the eligibility carved out in the Rules by having to qualify in the written test and thereafter, in the interview as well as in the Performance Appraisal Reports. ( 14 ) IN the instant writ petition it is the admitted case that there were 13 vacancies. In clause 2 (1) of the Rules it is laid down that the number of candidates to be considered for promotion from Scale I to scale II shall be restricted to four times the number of vacancies available for promotion. The fact that there were 13 vacancies has been stated by the petitioners themselves in Paragraph 7 of the writ petition and the fact that the 52 candidates (4 x 13) who fell within the zone of consideration fulfilling the eligibility criteria were enlisted would be seen from paragraph 18 (a) infra of the Affidavit-in-Opposition. It is seen that in this list of 52 candidates the Petitioners were all considered and were enlisted in order of seniority for purposes of enabling them to sit for the exams and then, subject to their qualifying, to appear at the interview and then to get the Performance Appraisal Reports screened. ( 15 ) THIS Court, is therefore of the view that the respondents cannot be said to have acted against the Rules as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner when he submitted that the respondents have deviated from the principle of seniority-cum-merit. ( 16 ) BEFORE going to the next point, it is relevant to take note that the 1998 Rules, in effect, postulates that promotion to be given thereunder is actually based on merit-cum-seniority and not seniority- cum-merit. This view has found support in a Judgment delivered by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in W. P. 8066 (W) of 1999 (Pradip kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. Murshidabad Gramin Bank and Ors. by Judgment delivered on 2. 4. 01 ). In the said Judgment, it has been held that although under Rule 2 (d) it has been stipulated that promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, but in effect, it is merit- cum-seniority. v. Murshidabad Gramin Bank and Ors. by Judgment delivered on 2. 4. 01 ). In the said Judgment, it has been held that although under Rule 2 (d) it has been stipulated that promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, but in effect, it is merit- cum-seniority. The learned single Judge has also held that clause 2 (d) has to be read as merit-cum-seniority within the definition of the said phraseology. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are to be found at Pages 6 and 9 to 11 thereof and, they are accordingly reproduced hereunder as follows: page-6 (top) "with regard to the second ground Mr. Sanyal has submitted that the relevant Standing Order being Standing Order No. 642e dated july 29, 1998. if read as a whole, clearly postulates that the promotion shall be made on merit cum seniority basis and not as seniority cum merit as wrongly stipulated in 2 (b) thereof. According to Mr. Sanyal Clause 2 of the third schedule of the said Standing order, if read as a whole, would logically suggest such meaning. Mr. Sanyal in support of his contention has cited two Supreme court decisions reported in 1998 Vol. III Supreme Court Cases, page 694 and AIR 1986, Supreme Court, Page 1043. ""rule 2 of the third schedule of the Standing Order is relevant for consideration in the instant case. Sub-Clause (b) denotes the promotion would be made on seniority cum merit. The eligibility clauses being clause (e), (b) and (i) give the criterion to bring the candidates within the zone of consideration. Clause (f) prescribes the mode of selection. e. by holding written test, interview and performance assessment. Clause (g) deals with the composition of the selection committee. Clause (j) stipulates that the selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written tests, interview and performance appraisal require for proceeding five years. Sub-clause A stipulates that a candidate to become eligible to be called on in interview must obtain 40% marks in both the groups whereas sub-clause B denotes that there is no minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Whereas sub-clause C the last five years records are to be considered for awarding marks. There are total 100 marks in the selection process out of which written tests denotes 60 marks, interview and performance records 20 marks each. Whereas sub-clause C the last five years records are to be considered for awarding marks. There are total 100 marks in the selection process out of which written tests denotes 60 marks, interview and performance records 20 marks each. It is significant that there is no minimum marks prescribed for being considered for ultimate selection. If I have to accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the promotion in the instant case is in accordance with seniority cum merit then I have to find out from the standing order the minimum marks to make the senior- most eligible for the promotional post. In absence of such marking it is very difficult to ask the authority to act on the basis of the standing Order by giving promotion to the senior cadre on the basis of minimum eligible qualification when there is no minimum eligible qualification fixed for the said post. The rule of interpretation does not permit me to add or delete any word. I have to give harmonious construction of the said Standing Order as far as practicable. Hence, reading clause 2 of the third schedule of the said Standing Order and taking a sum total of the relevant sub- clauses and the meaning thereof it appears to me that although the said promotion has been stipulated to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit it is in effect merit cum seniority.. therefore, find substance in Mr. Sanyal's argument. I hold that clause 2 (d) has to be read as merit cum seniority in accordance with the definition of the said phrase as held by the Apex Court in various Judgments including the Judgment reported in AIR 1998, Supreme Court, page 2565. Hence I do not find any irregularity in the selection process. " [sic but underlining by this Court] ( 17 ) THIS Court is neither a court of appeal nor does it consider it appropriate to take a view which is different from the view already taken by the other Hon'ble single Judge of this Court. ( 18 ) IN that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to hold that the two Rules (. e. 1988 and the 1998 Rules) are two separate and distinct rules and therefore, the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be made to apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 18 ) IN that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to hold that the two Rules (. e. 1988 and the 1998 Rules) are two separate and distinct rules and therefore, the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be made to apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 19 ) THIS Court further proceeds to hold that Rule 2 (d) cannot be read in isolation because if it were so done, it would render meaningless the entire Rule in so far as it relates to the mode and manner of selection and which have been specifically set out in Rules 2 (f), 2 (i) and 2 (j) A, B and C and which, for purposes of convenience, have already been quoted above. ( 20 ) IT would also be relevant to state that the 1988 Rules have been superseded by the 1998 Rules and this would be evident from the very preamble of the Notification published in the manner stated above on 29. 7. 98 and which has been quoted above. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this Court comes to the inescapable conclusion that the Respondent Bank has not committed any irregularity in adopting the principle of merit-cum-seniority strictly in terms of the 1998 Rules. For the same reason, this Court also rejects the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the committee having not conducted the entire process of selection and having become operational only from the stage of the interview, acted illegally. Rule 2 (f) has already been quoted above. Upon a perusal thereof, it is evident that all that this Rule stipulates that the selection of the candidates will be made by the Committee on the basis of written tests, interview and assessment of Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding five years. This rule does not say that the Committee will conduct the entire selection process as has been argued by the learned counsel. ( 22 ) IN that view of the matter, this Court holds that even if the interview was held on 24. 8. 06 by a Committee as disclosed by the respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition, the same was neither irregular nor illegal. ( 22 ) IN that view of the matter, this Court holds that even if the interview was held on 24. 8. 06 by a Committee as disclosed by the respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition, the same was neither irregular nor illegal. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel to the effect that the Respondents were bound to have followed the strict definitions of seniority cum merit in the instant case. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances hereof, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.