IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7863 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Association, Samastipur through its General Secretary Bhunesh Prasad Choudhary, s/o Late Janak Kishore Choudhary, r/o Mohalla Kashipur, Ward No.10, P.S.- Town, District-Samastipur. 2. Bhunesh Prasad Choudhary, s/o Late Janak Kishore Choudhary, r/o Mohalla Kashipur, Ward No.10, P.S.-Town, District-Samastipur. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office-Samastipur through its Chairman. 4. The Chairman, Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office- Samastipur. 5. State Bank of India having its Head Office at Worli, Mumbai through its Chairman. 6. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) through its Chairman. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.7863 of 2011 (2) 03-05-2011 2 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 3.5.2011. With the consent of the learned advocates the matter is heard and decided today. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Association and one another to challenge the constitutional validity of the Regional Rural Banks- (Appointment and Promotion of - Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 read with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 in consultation with National Banks and the Sponsor Banks. The challenge is in respect of the selection process for promotion to Junior Management Scale-1. The relevant Rule provides for selection for promotion on the basis of the marks obtained at the written test, the interview and for performance appraisal. Out of total 100 marks, 50 marks are allotted to the written test, 20 to the interview and 30 for performance appraisal. The submission is that the Rules do not provide for publication of the marks of the written examination unlike the competitive examination held for direct recruitment. 20 marks allotted for interview is excessive and is capable of being abused. There is lack of parity for appointment by direct selection and by promotion. For direct recruitment the competitive examination is held by an agency such as Institute of Patna High Court CWJC No.7863 of 2011 (2) 03-05-2011 3 Banking Personnel selection or any other agency approved by the Sponsor Banks. Whereas, the examination for promotion shall be taken by the Bank itself. We see no merit in the challenge to the aforesaid Rules. What is challenged before us is the Rules regarding selection process and not the substantive Rules. No one can have a vested right to procedure. Besides, 20% marks allotted for interview for in-service candidates who have a minimum experience of around 10 years and who are well versed with the banking business cannot be said to be excessive. The Rules cannot be held to be unconstitutional for no outside agency is engaged to hold the examination or to conduct the selection process. It is the prerogative of the employer to select its own employees. However, in cases it may outsource the selection process by appointing an outside agency. It is the appointment of agency for recruitment which is an exception to normal rule of employers’ right to make selection of its employees. Merely because two separate selection process are provided for appointment by direct recruitment and for appointment by promotion the provisions do not become arbitrary so as to contravene the rule of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No rule shall be rendered invalid or unconstitutional for it is capable of being abused. No other contention is raised before us. Patna High Court CWJC No.7863 of 2011 (2) 03-05-2011 4 We see no merit in the challenge to the aforesaid Rules of appointment and promotion. The petition is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)