Judgment :- Petitioners challenges is non-selection for promotion to Scale-II Officers and seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order No.PAD/01/1999-2000 dated 14. 1999 of the 1st Respondent in so far as promotion of the 2nd Respondent is concerned. 2. Petitioner entered into service in Pandyan Grama Bank on 22. 1979 as Accountant and the said post was redesignated as Officer Junior Management I (OJM I). Next avenue of promotion available to the Petitioner is to the post of Senior Manager – Scale II (MMG). Employees of the Bank, particularly in the Officers cadre have been representing to the Management about the necessity for making available adequate avenues of promotion. By Circular No.PAD/40/95-96 dated 19.02.1996, 1st Respondent announced a promotion policy i.e. promotion to Scale–II Officers shall be the seniority-cum-merit and a minimum length of service of 8 years in the post of OJM-I. 3. By Circular No.PAD/21/98-99 dated 03.08.1998, it was announced that 45 vacancies of Senior Manager/Area Manager (Scale-II) posts had been created and that the promotion process for 45 vacancies along with three existing vacancies would commence shortly. Although, Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 (for short Promotion Rules) were notified on 27. 1998. By Circular No.PAD/47/98-99 dated 112. 1998 a new promotion policy was announced, whereby the posts of Scale-II officers were to be filled up by selection (i) written test; (ii) interview and (iii) performance appraisal report. Vacancies announced by Circular dated 08. 1998 were filled up on the basis of new promotion policy/guidelines. 4. Case of the Petitioner is that rules prevailing at that time when the vacancies arose should be applied to fill up any given vacancy and not any amended rule that may come into force later and that the principle of seniority-cum-merit lays greater emphasis on seniority. According to the Petitioner, without prejudice to his rights, he appeared for written test and interview and also performed well. By the impugned order of promotion dated 14. 1999, 43 vacancies including several juniors of the Petitioner have been promoted on a regular basis while five more persons have been promoted on an officiating basis. In so far as, promotion of the 2nd Respondent is concerned, Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order. 5. First Respondent filed counter stating that new promotion rules were gazetted on 27. 1998, in supersession of the earlier rules of 1988. In so far as, promotion of the 2nd Respondent is concerned, Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order. 5. First Respondent filed counter stating that new promotion rules were gazetted on 27. 1998, in supersession of the earlier rules of 1988. Notification itself states that it shall come into force on the publication in the official gazette. Bank issued a circular dated 08. 1998 announcing 48 vacancies to the post of Scale-II officers are to be filled up. According to the 1st Respondent when vacancies were filled up, 1988 rules had come into force and therefore, there is nothing irregular in filling up the vacancies. It is further averred that Petitioner participated in the promotion process under 1988 rules and he did not protest against the promotion process. Only when he was not empanelled, Petitioner made grievance of application of 1988 rules and he is estopped from doing so. 6. Taking me through the materials on record, Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that as per 1996 promotion rules, seniority-cum-merit was the criteria for promotion, whereas under the new rules seniority was given up and merit was taken as the criteria. Relying on Y.V.Rangaiahs case and Arjun Singh Rathores case, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vacancies were to be filled by promotion under the rules which were in operation on the date when vacancies had occurred. The learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly contended that even prior to circular of new promotion rules (on 112. 1998), the vacancies were notified on 08. 1998 and therefore, promotion process could be only in accordance with old rules. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that new rules could be applied only prospectively to the vacancies arising in future after 112. 1998. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that without prejudice to his right of objection, Petitioner participated in promotion process under new rules and there cannot be any plea of estoppel against him. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that denial of promotion to the Petitioner is arbitrary affecting his rights. 7. Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submitted that having participated in the selection process, as per new promotion rules, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the promotion process. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that new promotion rules were gazetted even on 27. 7. Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submitted that having participated in the selection process, as per new promotion rules, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the promotion process. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that new promotion rules were gazetted even on 27. 1998 and vacancies were notified only on 08. 1998 and therefore, vacancies were actually filled up as per the promotion process under new rules, 1998 and the same cannot be challenged. 8. Point falling for consideration is whether new rules with respect to promotion will apply or old rules 1996, will apply. Promotion policy of the Bank for the Officers is based on the rules and notification and they shall form part of the promotion policy. As per old rules, 1996, promotion policy for promotions from Officers in Scale-I to Scale-II was under seniority-cum-merit method. As per old rules weightage for various factors was seniority-cum-merit method. Under old Rules weightage for various factors would be according to the marks awarded to the candidates with the maximum of 60. Various parameters for the same are given below: i) Seniority Max. 30 ii) Confidential Report : 10 iii) Interview : 10 } Max.30 iv) Performance : 10 9. In exercise of powers conferred by Sec.29 read with Sec.17 thereof and in supersession of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998, new rules, 1998 were gazetted on 27. 1998. Notification itself states that it shall come into force on the publication in the official gazette. Only after the rules were gazetted, Bank has issued the above said circular No. PAD/20/98-99 dated 08. 1998 announcing creation of 45 vacancies and stating that promotion process for 45 vacancies along with three existing vacancies will commence shortly. Seniority list of Officers as on 9. 1998 was also published. 10. New promotion policy for promotions from Officers in Scale-I to Scale-II was circulated to all the branches in Circular No.PAD/47/98-98 dated 112. 1998. As per Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998 promotion would be purely on merit basis. Seniority list of Officers as on 9. 1998 was also published. 10. New promotion policy for promotions from Officers in Scale-I to Scale-II was circulated to all the branches in Circular No.PAD/47/98-98 dated 112. 1998. As per Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998 promotion would be purely on merit basis. As per new rules, selection process for promotion is as under:- Selection process for promotion: The selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and performance Appraisal Reports for proceeding five years as per the division of marks given below: a) Written Test : 60 Marks b) Interview : 20 Marks c) Performance Appraisal Reports : 20 Marks Total .... : 100 Marks Performance appraisal reports for the proceeding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that after creation of post on 08. 1998 and after circulating seniority list on 09. 1998, 1st Respondent was not right in adopting new policy which came into effect subsequently. Learned counsel for the Petitioner forcibly contended that rules in force at that time when vacancies arose alone have to be applied for filling up the said vacancies and not rules that came into force subsequently. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that promotion rules, 1998 though notified on 27. 1998, promotion policies/guidelines which actually contain the rules was published / circulated only on 112. 1998 and therefore, prior to 112. 1998 it was only the earlier policies / guidelines framed in 1996 was in force and therefore, all 48 vacancies ought to have been filled in accordance with 1996 guidelines. 12. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon [2007] 11 SCC 605 [Arjun Singh Rathore and others v. B.N.Chaturvedi and others]. The said case also relates to promotion of officers to Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998. In the said case appellants were initially promoted in September 2000 under the old Rules of 1988 but their promotions were reconsidered in November 2005 because of ensuing litigation wherein the High Court held that promotions should have been made according to new Rules of 1998 instead of the 1988 Rules. In the said case appellants were initially promoted in September 2000 under the old Rules of 1988 but their promotions were reconsidered in November 2005 because of ensuing litigation wherein the High Court held that promotions should have been made according to new Rules of 1998 instead of the 1988 Rules. All of them were re-promoted except one, on the ground that charge-sheet had been issued to him on 11. 2005 while results of fresh promotions were declared later on 211. 2005. Subsequently, the Supreme Court confirmed that promotions under the 1988 Rules were rightly made, and the 1998 Rules were not applicable. In the said case, Bank itself has applied old rules in respect of 25 persons. In such circumstances, Court has observed that vacancy which had occurred prior to enforcement of Rules of 1998 had to be filled under the Rules, 1998 and as per the procedure laid down thereon. 13. Mainly relying upon Y.V. Rangaiahs case, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Rules prevailing at that time when vacancy arose should be applied to fill up any given vacancy and not any amended rule that may come into force later and that the principle of seniority-cum-merit lays greater emphasis on seniority. [1983] 3 SCC 284 [Y.V.Rangaiah v. J.Sreenivasa Rao] is a case which arise under Rule 4(a) (1) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules. There it was laid down that all first appointments to a certain State or subordinate service and all promotions in a service (otherwise than in accordance with clause (ii) of sub-rule (b) of Rule 34) shall be made from a list of approved candidates. The rule further provided that the lists had to be prepared in the month of September, every year so as to be in force until the list of approved candidates for the succeeding year was prepared. Apart from the aforesaid rules, the Government had issued instructions that all vacancies should be filled without delay. All the appointing authorities were directed to ensure that the panels were prepared promptly in the month of September every year. However, contrary to the rules and instructions, a panel or a list of approved candidates was not prepared in September 1976. In fact, the panel was drawn up only in the year 1977 by which time the aforesaid rules were amended on and from 23. 1977. However, contrary to the rules and instructions, a panel or a list of approved candidates was not prepared in September 1976. In fact, the panel was drawn up only in the year 1977 by which time the aforesaid rules were amended on and from 23. 1977. The grievance of the petitioners was that contrary to the rules and also specific instructions of the Government, preparation of list of approved candidates was delayed as a result of which they were adversely affected. In the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held by this Court that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules. 14. The facts in the present case are entirely different. Petitioner is not right in contending that new promotion rules came into effect only on 112. 1998, the date on which rules were circulated. As pointed out earlier, in exercise of powers under Sec.29 read with Sec.17 of revised rules of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998 were gazetted on 27. 1998. In the notification itself, it was clearly stated that rules would come into immediate effect from 27. 1998. The date on which new rules come into operation does not depend upon the circular sent to the Branches. 15. Board has approved creation of forty five vacancies. By Circular dated 08. 1998, 1st Respondent was informed that promotion process for 45 vacancies along with three existing vacancies, the promotion process will commence shortly. There was no difficulty in filling up newly created 45 vacancies as per new promotion policy. 16. Even in respect of three existing vacancies, Petitioner cannot contend that only old rules have to be applied. Pandyan Grama Bank Officers Union has sent representation on 19. 1998 expressing their happiness about the new rules 1998 gazetted on 27. 1998. Union has stated that new rules gazetted on 27. 1998 which has come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette were yet to be circulated and requested amendment to issue circular about the new promotion rules and effect. 17. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent made pertinent submission that the Petitioner is a member of that Union. It was only on the representation of Bank Officers Union, new promotion policy gazetted on 27. 1998 was circulated to all the branches on 112. 1998. 17. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent made pertinent submission that the Petitioner is a member of that Union. It was only on the representation of Bank Officers Union, new promotion policy gazetted on 27. 1998 was circulated to all the branches on 112. 1998. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was not right in saying that new promotion rules came into force only on 112. 1998 when it was circulated. 18. Petitioner himself participated in the promotion process under 1998 rules knowing fully well the rules and he did not protest against the promotion process. Only when he was not empanelled, he had made a grievance of the application of 1998 rules. When he had appeared for written test and participated in the promotion process, as per new rules without any demur, Petitioner cannot challenge the applicability of new rules. 19. In 2008 (3) L.L.N. 57 [Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others], the Honble Supreme Court has held that having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging the selection criterion. It was further observed that if they had any valid objection, they should have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection. 20. In 1995 (2) L.L.N.22 [Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others], the Honble Supreme Court has pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. Supreme Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. 21. In 2008 (3) L.L.N. 57 [Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others], the Honble Supreme Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. 21. In 2008 (3) L.L.N. 57 [Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others], the Honble Supreme Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process. 22. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that Petitioner has performed well in the written test and interview and that without justifiable reasons, promotion of the Petitioner has been withheld. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that when the Petitioner has made categorical statement that he has performed well in the written test and in the interview, the 1st Respondent has not chosen to produce the file to refute the same. 23. In response Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent has submitted that Petitioner has secured 26 marks out of 60 marks in the written test and whereas he has secured only 3.25 marks out of 20 marks in the interview. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has also produced the file relating to promotion of Officers from Scale – I to Scale – II. It appears that 230 Officers appeared for the examination. Out of which 146 were declared and successful and all 146 were called for interview. Interview were held from 04. 1999 to 4. 1999. Of the candidates appeared for the interview about 65 candidates including the Petitioner were found not suitable to shoulder higher responsibilities as Scale – II Officers. It is not as if the Petitioner alone had been singled out to deny the promotion. Perusal of the file would indicate that the promotion process was fair. There is no force in the contention of the Petitioner that he has faired well in the interview and without justifiable reasons his promotion has been withheld. 24. As per new rules, performance appraisal reports for the proceeding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion. In so far as, performance appraisal, Petitioner was rated as poor. In this regard, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has also drawn attention of the Court to Service records of the Petitioner which refers to certain proceedings initiated against the Petitioner and also adverse remarks. 25. In so far as, performance appraisal, Petitioner was rated as poor. In this regard, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has also drawn attention of the Court to Service records of the Petitioner which refers to certain proceedings initiated against the Petitioner and also adverse remarks. 25. Having unsuccessfully participated in the promotion process as per new rules, Petitioner cannot challenge the promotion process and Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed.