PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BOTH these appeals involve common question of law, hence, same are decided by this common order. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.11.2008 by which 3 writ petitions bearing No. 5137/2003, 5138/2003 and 5139/2003 were allowed on the ground that providing minimum qualifying marks in interview for the purpose of promotion to the higher post i.e. to the post of Officer Scale -H is contrary to the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 (for short 'the Rules of 1998'). Therefore, the denial of promotions to the petitioners on the ground that they did not secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview i.e. 10 out of 20 was wrong.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioners knowing well about the circular issued by the appellant bank appeared in the written test and appeared for interview and when they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview and were denied promotion, they have challenged the criteria fixed by the appellant bank providing for minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Since the writ petitioners themselves accepted that condition and took chance on the basis of circular issued by the appellant bank, now after failing in that, they cannot challenge the circular issued by the appellant bank fixing minimum qualifying marks for promotion to the higher post. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of above plea relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of (1) Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in : (2009) 3 SCC 227; (2) Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in : (2008) 4 SCC 171; and (3) of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr. M.C. Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in ILR 22 Raj. 711.;