AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shrawan Kumar, senior advocate appearing in support of this writ petition and Dr. S.N. Jha, senior Advocate appearing in opposition to the writ petition on behalf of the respondent bank.

2. The petitioner is an employee of the Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank (the Bank, hereinafter) and holds the rank of an officer in Scale I. He seeks to dispute certain provision of the "promotion modalities" framed by the bank for promotion of officers from Junior Management, Scale I to Middle Management Grade, Scale II. The provison by which the petitioner feels aggrieved stipulates that officers getting 55 out of total of 100 marks in a written test, interview and assessment report would be considered suitable/fit for promotion.

3. This writ petition was filed at the threshold of the promotion process. But as it happens, the impugned provision ultimately proved to be the petitioners undoing and he was denied promotion because he failed to get the minimum prescribed marks in the over all total.

4. The provision in the promotion "modality" is assailed on the ground that it was in conflict with the provisions for promotion as contained in the statutory rules framed under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 .

5. At this stage, it would be apposite to take a brief look at the statutory provisions and then to see whether or not there was any conflict between the provisions in the Rules and the impugned provision in the "modalities" framed by the bank. The broad features of the statutory rules in so far as relevant for the present may be summarised thus.

6. Promotion of Officers from Junior Management, Scale I to Middle Management Grade, Scale II is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The selection for promotion is on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in (i) written test (total marks for which is 60), (ii) interview (total marks being 20), and (iii) performance appraisal reports (total marks being 20); the over all total, thus, being 100. The rules further provide that a candidate must secure atleast 40% in the written test (that is, 24 out of 60) to qualify for being called for interview. It is expressly provided that for the interview, which is of a total of 20 marks, there would be no minimum qualifying marks. Performance appraisal also carries a total of 20 marks and for awarding marks under this head, performance appraisal reports for the proceeding five years are to be taken into consideration. This being the position under the rules the bank framed certain "modalities" for the promotion, working out the details of the selection procedure. The provision in the "modalities" that makes the petitioner aggrieved is as follows:

"Selection: Officers getting a minimum of 55 marks out of the total 100 marks consisting of Written Test, Interview and Assessment Report shall be considered suitable/ fit for promotion to the post of MMG Scale-IL"

Now, it is well settled that no exception can be taken to non- statutory provisions/instructions so long as those are supplemental in nature and do not tend to supplant the statutory rules. Therefore, the main question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the impugned provision in the banks "modalities" is merely supplemental in nature or it comes within the mischief of supplanting or being in conflict with the statutory rules.

7 Mr. Shrawan Kumar strenuously argued that the impugned provision in the modalities was clearly in conflict with the statutory rules of promotion. Mr. Kumar submitted that under the rules the only minimum standard prescribed was to secure 40% marks in the written test for being called for interview and thereafter the rules did not lay down any minimum marks in tne over all total; that by prescribing minimum marks also with regard to the over all total, the bank sought to introduce a further rider in the promotion process. Learned Counsel submitted that in the criterion of seniority-cum-merit, seniority had a pre-domi