BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN at the out set we have to mention that in view of the identity of issues, while Writ Appeal No. 719 of 1985 was listed for hearing to-day, both the counsel made a request that Writ Petition No. 10463 of 1983 may also be taken up. Accordingly they are listed. Both these matters can be dealt with under a common judgment since identical issues arise for our determination.

(2.) WRIT Appeal No. 719 of 1985: The writ appeal is directed against the Judgment of Natarajan, J. (as he then was) rendered in WRIT petition No. 1682 of 1985. In that writ petition the prayer was for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification of the Union of India, dated 1-3-1984 and direct the second respondent the Union of India to appoint an officer-Employee who is the principal office bearer of the Federation of Bank of India Officers'Association or of its affiliates namely any of the bank of India Officers Association to the post of Director. In WRIT Petition no. 10463 of 1983, originally the prayer was for a declaration declaring that clause 3 (c) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions)Scheme, 1970 is void, unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative in law, inasmuch as the same is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india and contrary to the mandate contained in Art. 43-A of the Constitution of india insofar as the members of the petitioner Association is concerned. However, an amendment application had been taken out to the following effect in w. M. P. No. 11860 of 1986. "to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent - Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Banking, New Delhi to appoint after consultation with the Reserve Bank under Clause 3 (iii) (c) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 the Principal office bearer of the recognised Federation (which for the present is the Federation of the Bank of India officers Association ). " The petition for amendment was ordered on 27-10-1986.

(3.) SECONDLY, the original term of office was for a period of three years. By reason of the amendment of the scheme on 1st March, 1984, the term is now made at the pleasure of the Central Government. This again vests the Central Government with arbitrary power. Both these contentions were rejected by Natarajan, J. (as he then was) In the course of the judgment the learned Judge has referred to an unreported judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court rendered in D. V. Ramdas v. State Bank of India represented by its Chairman etc. , W. A. No. 1603 of 1984. Notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the state Bank of India Act and the rules made thereunder were identical in terms, yet the learned Judge expressed his dissent with that judgment and held that there was nothing discriminatory. He was of the view that under Clause (c) who is required to be appointed by the Central Government is only a representative and not a chosen or an elected or popular representative. It is against the dismissal of the said writ petition, W. A. No. 719 of 19s5 has come to be preferred. On identical grounds the prayer originally was made for striking down Clause 3 (c), but realising that should such a clause be struck down there would be no representative at all for office employee, the amendment, has come to be made so as to pray for a mandamus to direct the Union of India to appoint after consultation with the Reserve Bank in accordance with Clause 3 (c) of the scheme a principal office bearer of the recognised Federation.