Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) ASSAILING the judgment and order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by the learned trial Judge in W.P. No. 22082 (W) of 2005, this appeal has been preferred. The impugned order reads such: "12.3.2007.- These three petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to cancel the Written Tests which were held on 04.09.2005 for considering the promotions of the Clerks to the Officer Cadre in Scale - 1. The petitioners have further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to hold fresh Written Tests through an experienced and professional outside Agency in compliance with the Rules. The Petitioners have also prayed for cancellation of the panel of those candidates who have been shown to have qualified in the Written Tests and also to quash the entire process relating to the said Written Tests. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the Petitioner No. 1 joined as a junior Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Nadia Gamin Bank in 1984. He is now presently posted at the Rautari Branch. The petitioner No. 2 also joined in the same capacity in the Nadia Gamin Bank in the year 1984 and is now posted at the Baganchra Branch. The Petitioner No. 3 also joined as junior Clerk- cum-Cashier in the year 1988 in the Nadia Gamin Bank and is presently posted at the Khidirpur Branch. 3. On 29.07.1998, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs issued a Notification purporting to be in exercise of powers conferred under section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 read with section 17 thereof, whereby and where under, while superseding the earlier "Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules 1988, it framed a new set of Rules in consultation with the National Bank and other Sponsor Banks specified in the 2nd Schedule appended thereto and, which came to be known and named as the "Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees)Rule 1988". 4. In other words, the 1998 Rules superseded by these new rules which came into force on 29.07.1998 and which, for the sake of brevity and precision will hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Rules. 5. The aforementioned 1998 Rules has been brought on record by the Petitioners vide Annexure P-I appended to this writ petitioner. 6.Let it be recorded that on 12.03.2007 when the case was called out, Mr. D. Saha Roy, learned Counsel appearing for he petitioner had submitted that two Notifications had been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) whereby and where under the Central Government, after consultation with the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Government of West Bengal and the United Bank of India being the Sponsor Bank of Gaur Gramin Bank, Mallabhum Gramin Bank, Murshidabad Gramin Bank, Nadia Gramin Bank and Sagar Gramin Bank (Regional Rural Banks) and in the interests of development of the area serve by them, had decided that all these Rural Banks should be amalgamated into a single Regional Rural Bank to be called as "Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank". 7. Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, did not dispute the aforementioned contention. On fact, he produced a copy of the aforementioned Notification dated 21.2.2007 and accordingly, by Order of this Court passed on 12.03.2007, the same was directed to be kept with the records of this case. 8. Mr. L.K. Gupta had also submitted that he had been authorised to represent the "Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank". He had prayed that the Affidavit-in-opposition which had been filed on behalf the "Nadia Gramin Bank" be treated as the Affidavit-in-opposition of the "Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank". Mr. L.K. Gupta had also stated that he had already filed Power for the said transferee Bank. None of the Counsel appearing for the other respondent had objected to the aforementioned submissions of Mr. L. K. Gupta and accordingly, by the same Order dated 12.03.2007 this Court had directed that the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by he "Nadia Gramin Bank" be treated as he Affidavit-in-opposition of the aforementioned transferee Bank. 9. Mr. D. Saha Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as directed to add the aforementioned transferee Bank as Respondent No. 16, during the course of the day (i.e. 12.03.2007). He did so. 10. The petitioners have stated that the Board of Directors of the Nadia Gamin Bank had approved 14 (fourteen) vacancies of Scale-I Officers on 01.07.2005. They have stated in Paragraph 5 that in the said meeting, it was resolved that out of the aforementioned 14 (fourteen) vacancies 7 (seven) would be filled up by promotion from the existing eligible employees belonging to the Clerical Grade and out of the remaining 7 (seven), 5 (five) would be for the general category, while I (one) would be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and the remaining 1 (one) for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 11. Subsequently, by a Circular/Notice dated 02.08.2005 all Branches of the erstwhile Nadia Gamin Bank were informed that the Written Tests would be held on 04.05.2005 and that the vacancies would be filled up in terms of the guidelines of the Government of India dated 05.01.1999. 12. Although the Petitioners have referred the aforementioned Letter/ Guideline as being dated 05.01.1999 in Paragraph 7, but the same is actually the letter forwarding therewith the Gazette Notification being Statutory Order No. 642-E dated 29.07.1998 (i.e. the aforementioned 1998 Rules). The 1998 Rules, as already stated earlier, have been brought on record vide Annexure P-1 and the Letter dated 05.01.1999 has been placed between Pages 56 and 57 of the writ petition. 13. The petitioners have also brought on record a Circular issued by the erstwhile Nadia Gamin Bank being Circular No.NGB/CM/Promotion/ 1978/2000 Dated 05/09/2000 at Page-58 of the writ petition whereby and where under, while referring to the promotions to the post of Officers Scale-1, it was indicated that the promotion process will be governed by the new promotion policy notified by the Government of India-Statutory Order No.642-E dated 29.07.1998 called the "Regional Rural Bank Appointment and Promotion of Officer and Other Employees) Rules 1998" - i.e. in terms of the 1998 Rules. 14. In other words, there is no dispute that the subject matter of this Writ Petition will have to be assessed within the four corners of the 1998 Rules and not within the four corners of the earlier 1998 Rules. 15. According to the petitioners, they "were favoured with interview letters" (vide Annexure-P3) which were issued on 22.08.2005 by the Chairman of the erstwhile Nadia Gamin Bank asking them to appear in the Written Tests on 04.09.2005. After issuance of these letters, the petitioners, along with other candidates appeared in the Written Tests as well as in the interview. 16. The petitioners have stated that 119 candidates from the general category appeared in the Written Tests and out of these 119, only 10 candidates (general category) qualified for existing 5 promotional posts in the Officers Cadre, Scale-I. According to these Petitioner, and as has been stated in paragraph 23 infra, the petitioner No.2 was placed at Serial No. 11, and the petitioner No. 1 at serial No. 25 of the Seniority List of Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers as on 30/12/1990 (at page 83) while the Petitioner No. 3 was placed at Serial No 11 in the Seniority List of Junior Clerk-cum- Cashiers as on 31.05.1991 (at page 87). According to term, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are senior to all the private respondents who have qualified in the Written Tests and the petitioner No. 3 is senior to the respondent Nos. 8 to 14. 17. The petitioners came to learn that the management had already selected 5 (five) candidates for promotion. Accordingly to them, the alleged viva-voce test as nothing but an eye-wash. 18. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the 1998 Rules brought on record vide Annexure P-I and submitted that under Rule 30(i)(ii) read with Rule 3(g) of the 3rd Schedule appended thereto, the mode of selection in case of promotion has to be made exclusively by a Committee. According to him, the language of the Rule itself makes it mandatory that prior to holding of the Written Tests, the formation of a committee is absolutely mandatory. For convenience, -Rule 3 of the 3rd Schedule appended to the 1998 Rules, is reproduced below in its entirety and the same reds as follows: Note: i) The incumbents eligible for promotion on or before the publication of this notification shall continue to be considered for promotion to Scale I 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 or the purpose of promotion to Scale I officer post. f) Mode of selection : i) In the case of direct recruitment, the selection of candidates shall be made by the Banking Service Recruitment Board on the basis of Written Test and interview and in accordance with the procedure specified by them. ii) In the case of promotion the selection of the candidates shall be made by the committee on the basis of Written Test, interview and performance appraisal reports. 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 National Bank Member Note: If none of the members of the Committee belongs to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the Board may nominate a person belonging to Scheduled Castes/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 - All eligible candidates shall be considered for promotion. j) Selection process for promotees - The selection shall be on the basis of performance in the Written Test, interview and five years performance Appraisal Reports as per the division of marks given below: A) Written Test - 70 marks B) Interview - 20 marks C) Performance Appraisal Reports - 10 marks Total marks - 100 marks (A) Written Test (70 marks) - The candidates shall be required to appears for Written Test comprising test in English and test in Banking Law, practice and procedures including working procedures in the Regional Rural Bank concerned. 70 marks allotted to Written Test shall be further divided as under: English - 35 marks Banking Law Practice and Procedure - 35 marks Total - 70 marks A list of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 40% marks each in English, Banking Law, practice and procedures shall be prepared. The Bank, thereafter, shall prepare the list of selected candidates in the order of seniority to the extent of two hundred per cent of the vacancies for promotion for the purpose of calling for interview. B) Interview (20 marks) - There shall be no minimum qualifying marks in the interview. C) Assessment of Performance Appraisal Report - The Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding three years of the concerned employees, shall be considered. 19. Referring to the Circular/Letter/Notice Dated 06.10.2005 brought on record by the Respondent No.l in their Affidavit-in-Opposition as Annexure-R9 thereto, Mr. Bandopadhyay contends that this document is itself a pointer to establish that the Committee was constituted after the Written Tests on 04.06.2005. This letter, referred to by learned Counsel, contains, inter alia, the following information: a) Pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors taken in the 139th Board Meeting held on 01.07.2005, an outside Agency, namely Dosan Management Consultant and Services, Kolkata which had been entrusted with the job of conducting the Written Test, had conducted the same on 04.09.05 at the Dwijendra Lai College. b) The results of the said Tests were received by the Bank on 06.10.2005 in a sealed packet and in terms of the guidelines of the Government of India dated 29.07.1998 (i.e. the 1998 Rules as contained in Annexure-P to the Writ Petition), a Committee was constituted for consideration of the promotions and the said Committee consisted of 3 (three) members in the following manner: i) The Chairman of the concerned Regional Rural Bank as its Chairman; ii) A Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank as a Member; and iii) A Director nominated by the National Bank as the other Member. 20. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, this document proves that an outside Agency was appointed whereas in terms of the 1998 Rules, it was only a Committee which could have conducted the selection process and not an outside Agency. He submits that this document also establishes that instead of constituting the Committee prior to the date of holding the Tests, the same was constituted after the Tests were over. 21. Learned counsel submits that the action resorted to by the respondents was therefore a deviation from Rule 3 (f) (ii) as the Respondents were bound to have acted within the confines of the 1998 Rules. Since they did not do so, the entire process adopted by them was illegal, vitiated and non-east in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of "Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Company and Anr." reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437 wherein at paragraph 16, their Lordships have held that where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting that procedure, any deviation therefrom shall be labeled as arbitrary. He also refers to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 266 wherein at paragraph 17, their Lordships have repeated the same principle that if a statute provides a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. 22. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable to this Court as the judgments referred to by him cannot have any application in this case for the reason given hereafter. Rule 3 (f) (ii) quoted above clearly lays down that in case of promotion, the mode of selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on the basis of (1) Written Tests, (2) Interview and (3) Performance Appraisal Reports. In other words, the Results of all the 3 (three) Tests, pertaining to each candidate, is necessarily required to be placed for scrutiny of the 3 (three) Members of the Committee so that they can apply their minds qua selection on the basis thereof. . That apart, on a similar point relating to the Constitution of the Committee, this Court has already delivered a judgment on 18/01/2007 in W.P. No. 21998 (W) of 2005 in the case of Samsul Haque and Ors. v. Nadia Gramin Bank and Ors. wherein at paragraph 21 thereof, it has been held that the 1998 Rules do not say that the Committee will have to conduct the entire selection process. 23. Consequently, the point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the Committee could not have been constituted after the Written Tests were over, is not acceptable to this Court and it is accordingly rejected. Similarly, since the 1998 Rules nowhere says that it is the Committee which will have to conduct the entire selection process, it cannot therefore be said that the respondents have acted in a manner not prescribed by the Rules. Consequently, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made to apply in this case. 24. So far as the point relating to the appointment of an outside Agency is concerned, this Court has already noticed that the selection has to be made on the basis of the results of the (3) three tests, namely (1) Written Tests, (2) Interview and (3) Performance Appraisal Reports. Now, the Rules are totally silent as to who should conduct these tests. Since, the Rules are silent, should it therefore be construed that the Chairman of the Bank should conduct the examinations because he is supposed to be the Chairman of the Committee? Or, should it be construed that a Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank or Director nominated by the National Bank should be responsible for conducting the tests? 25. The answer to both these questions must be in the negative because if it were not so, it would have amounted to saying that notwithstanding their Banking functions as well as administrative functions pertaining to Banking, they would still be responsible for conducting the examination as well. This is too much to except because these Officers have far greater responsibilities of responsibly looking after the affairs of their respective Institutions. 26. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity if an outside Agency was appointed to merely conduct the Tests. This is in consonance of the well known principle that if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gap and supplement the Rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules. The decision of the Board of Directors to entrust Dosan Management Consultant and Services with the job of conducting the written examinations, as is evident from Annexure-R9 brought on record by he respondent No. 1 in its Affidavit- in-opposition, is decision which is no inconsistent with the Rules. In support of the aforementioned contention, this Court draws inspiration from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case Sanat Ram Sharma v. State of RqjasthanandAnr., reported in 1968 (1) SCR 111 (at 119) = AIR 1967 SC 1910. In the aforementioned case at page 119 of 1968 (1) SCR 111, their Lordships have stated: "We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr. N.C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument a correct. It is true that there is no specific provision" in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed". 27. Apart from the foresaid, even in the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner himself, i.e. the judgment passed in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Company and Anr., reported in (2003)5 SCC 437, their Lordships have stated in paragraph 16 that where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an Act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. In the instance case, the discernible principle which is reasonable and the impediment vis-a-vis the Rules is, that the 1998 Rules do no spell out as to who would conduct the tests. Therefore, by entrusting this job to an outside Agency, the Respondents cannot be said to have acted in any arbitrary or irregular/illegal manner. Paragraph 16 of the aforementioned judgment reads as follows: "Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every state action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uniformed by reason per se arbitrary." 28. Let it further be recorded that the 1998 Rules came into existence on and from 29/07/1998. Two years thereafter, i.e. on 05.09.2000 (See Pages 58 to 61 of the writ Petition), the National Gramin Bank, Head Office (Personal Department), issued a Circular addressed to all Branches and all the Departments at the Head Office wherein, in relation to promotion to the post of Officer (Scale-1), it was intimated to all concerned that the Board had decided that Written Tests in both the cases of promotion process from Clerk-cum-Cashier to Officers Scale-I and Messenger to Clerk-cum-Cashier will be conducted by an outside Agency which will be intimated in due time. Thus, five years prior to the holding of the Tests on 04.09.2005, the Bank had, in a transparent manner, intimated to all its Branches as well as to all the Head Office Departments that an outside Agency will conduct these Tests. Nobody resisted this Circular at that stage The petitioners also did no resist and on the contrary, they sat the examinations conducted by this very outside Agency. The fact that all of them participated would be evident from paragraph 20 of the Affidavit - in-Opposition filed by the respondent Nos.6, 9 and 12 to 15. In that paragraph, these respondents have stated that the writ petitioners participated in the process of promotion and being not successful in the Written Tests have come before this Court questioning the same process of promotion. They have also stated that this cannot be allowed at the instance of the writ petitioners after being not successful. In paragraph 13, these Respondents have also stated that the Written Tests was held smoothly on 04.09.2005. The writ petitioners as well as the private respondents had participated therein and the results were published through Notice dated 08.10,2005 by the Respondent Bank. Eleven candidates [10 - General and 1 - Scheduled Caste] are successful. None of the Writ Petitioners could qualify in the said Written Tests held on 04.09.2005. 29. Let it also be recorded that Annexure-R/10 is the Final Score Sheet for Promotion of Clerical Cadre to Officer Cadre (Scale-I) and this has been brought on record by the Respondent No. 1 in its Affidavit-in-Opposition to show that on the basis of the marks obtained in the 3 tests (i.e. Written Tests, Performance Appraisal and Interview), the Selection Committee granted the promotions. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Respondents, in the opinion of this Court, is not at all irregular or arbitrary. On the contrary, the same was strictly in terms of Rule 3(f)(ii) of the 1998 Rules. 30. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised another point in relation to what has been stated in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. It is submitted that in the Question Papers-cum-sheets relating to the subject Banking Law Practice and Procedures, carried a total of 35 marks. However, no marks were indicated against individual questions. Similarly, the English Paper carried 35 marks for which 12 questions were set out without disclosing as to which question carried how may marks. 31. This Court is not all impressed by the aforementioned arguments because the promotions did not exclusively depend only on the results of the Written Tests. It depended on the selection of Candidates on the basis of Written Tests, interview as well as performance appraisal reports. Therefore, for not indicating marks against each question, the entire process of selection, at this stage, should not be set aside the that too, when the process of ultimate selection depended on the combined results of the Written Tests, the Interview as well as the Performance Appraisal Reports. In the judgment delivered by this Court on 18.01.2007 in W.P. No. 21998(W) of 2005, referred to above, it has already been held that the 1998 Rules which superseded the 1988 Rules, in effect, postulates that promotion is to be given on the basis of the merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit which was the earlier requirement of the 1988 Rules. In the instant case relating to promotion, selection is based on the sum total of the performance of the 3 (three) Tests referred to above and, therefore, if individual marks have not been shown or indicated against each question in the question papers, the same, by itself, is not a factor for which the entire selection process should be set at naught. That apart. Rule 3(J) quoted above and which has been sub-divided into Rules 3J (A), (B) and (C) have already indicated that the Written Tests would carry 70 marks; the Interview would carry 20 marks and the Performance Appraisal Reports would carry 10 marks. Therefore, the total marks required to be obtained in all the 3 (three Tests) were already indicated as being 100. It is also necessary to indicate that the Rules have further clarified that the 70 marks in the Written Tests would be further sub-divided and the English Paper would carry 35 marks while the Banking Law Practice and Procedures would carry the remaining 35 marks. Therefore, by merely not mentioning individual marks for each question, the entire examinations are not rendered arbitrary or irregular. Rule 3(J) as already been quoted above. 32. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is unable to accept the points argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 33. Consequently this Court holds that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a result of the dismissal of this Writ Petition, the Interlocutory Application being CAN No. 8714 of 2006 is also dismissed. Re: CAN No., 9039 of 2006 Since this was an Application where the Respondent Nos. 6, 9 and 12 to 15 had prayed that they be allowed to file their Affidavits-in-opposition and since this Court, by its Order dated 21.12.06, after having heard the parties, had allowed them to do so, no further Order is required to be passed on this Application save and except to record that in spite of liberty having been granted by the same Order to file reply thereto by the 9th January, 2007, no such reply was filed and the matter was heard on different dates. It is accordingly deemed to have been disposed of. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certified copy of the judgment and order, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions." It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants that prior to constitution of the Committee in terms of Recruitment Rules, 1998, the Board had taken a decision to appoint an independent agency to hold written test, hence the entire selection process was vitiated. Admittedly, the appellants appeared in the said written test without any objection and they failed to secure 40% bench mark in the said written test. After the result was declared, the writ application was moved. Already the candidates who have been qualified in the written test have been appointed following the Recruitment Rules which is based on seniority-cum- merit. The only point as taken that the written test was taken by an outside agency prior to constitution of the selection committee, in our view, will not vitiate the selection process.
(3.) BESIDES such, once appearing in the selection process and being unsuccessful, the person concerned cannot assail the selection process. It is a settled legal position of law that the principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver are applicable when selection process is challenged by unsuccessful candidate. It is also a case of approbate and reprobate. Reliance is placed to the judgement passed in the case Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2011) SCC 156 paragraph 24 thereof. In this case earlier views expressed by the Apex Court in the judgments G. Sarana(Dr.)v. University of Lucknow, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 (Paragraph 15), P. S. Gopanathan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 70 (paragraph 44) and KM. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 (paragraph 72) were relied upon. Similar views expressed by the Apex Court in the case Dhananjoy Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 wherein earlier views of the Apex Court passed in the case Madanlalv. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Marripati Nagrqja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 592 were relied upon. Similar view echoed by the Apex Court in the case K.A. Nagmoni v. Indian Air Lines and Ors., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 (paragraphs 54 8y 55) wherein Madanlal (supra) relied upon. Learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon a judgment passed in the case K.K. Parmer and Ors. v. High Court of Gujarat, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 789 to contend that prior to formation of committee the Board took a decision by appointing an independent agency to hold written test, which caused a serious breach, to quash the selection process and no estoppel principle is applicable. The judgment K.K. Parmer and Ors. (supra) as has been referred to was passed in a different angle and factual parameters. In that case past performance of the candidate was considered by allotting marks but it was not in the rule.;