V.S. SHANKAR AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY THE GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction declaring that paragraph II (c) of the Administration Circular No. 8, dated 13-5-1972 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, is unconstitutional, being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and to further direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for selection to the post of Staff Officers, Grade II cadre without reference to the provisions of paragraph II (c) mentioned above. The five petitioners herein are working at present as Stenographers in the Hyderabad Office of the Reserve Bank of India. They were originally recruited as Typists and after sometime promoted as Stenographers, The 1st petitioner was started as a Typist in 1956 and was promoted as Stenographer in 1963. The 2nd petitioner was a Typist from 1962 and became a Stenographer in 1966. The 3rd petitioner was first appointed as a Typist in 1964 and became a Stenographer since 1968. The 4th petitioner started as a Typist since 1966 and became a Stenographer only in 1971. The Stenographers were also considered for promotion to the posts of Staff Officers, Grade II along with the clerks. Prior to 1964 the method of recruitment was by interviewing all the candidates i.e., clerks and Stenographers. The Stenographers had to pass Parts I and II examination of the Indian Institute of Bankers and the Clerks had to pass Part I examination and they are required to pass Part II for confirmation as Staff Officers, Grade II. In the panel of selected candidates the Stenographer used to be placed at the top and above the clerks and anther group of employees called the Economics Assistants, who were also recruited by promotion to the Staff Officers, Grade II posts. In 1964 a change was introduced by Staff Circular No. 635/110-63/74, dated 23-4-1964 requiring a minimum total service of 15 years for a Stenographer out of which five years should be in the capacity of a Stenographer. The other condition of passing part I and II Indian Institute of Bankers Examination was retained. We are not concerned in this case with the Economics Assistants and the changes introduced with respect to them. The next change in the service rules was introduced by the impugned Administration Circular No. 8, Dated 13-5-1972. In addition to the 15 years length of qualifying service for the Stenographers, it was further provided that all the Clerks and Stenographers should appear at a qualifying written examination that after selection at the examination the Stenographers should undergo one year's training as Clerks and that the Stenographers enbloc should be placed below the Clerks in the panel to be prepared. Out of the petitioners only the 1st petitioner completed 15 years of service by 23-12-1971 and he was allowed to appear for the examination by orders of this Court. The petitioner's ground of complaint is that these drastic changes were introduced in 1972 as a result of the representations of employees' union in which the Clerks had a dominant voice. It is submitted that the changes introduced are discriminatory and have deprived the petitioners of equality of opportunity guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. It is asserted that the Stenographers (Petitioners) are superior to the category of Clerks as their scale of pay is higher than that of the Clerks. It is therefore contended that the conditions imposed by the new Circular are arbitrary, discriminatory, void and hence unconstitutional. It is further urged that prior to the impugned Circular the Stenographers were placed enbloc over the Clerks in the panel but now the Stenographers are placed below the list of the Clerks in the panel. This provision also is said to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and also-deprives the petitioners of equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. In other words, it is urged that though the Stenographers are considered for promotion, their chances of promotion have become illusory and virtually nil and in that sense they were deprived of equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion.

(2.) A counter affidavit was filed by the Deputy Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay on behalf of the respondents, the Central Board of Directors of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay and the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad. The first point raised in the counter-affidavit is that the terms of appointment are purely contractual in nature in view of the declaration form signed by the petitioners and that therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. This contention is devoid of any force. If the circular is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it is no answer to say that the relationship between the parties is contractual. Another contention raised is that promotion to a higher grade is not a matter of right. This question also does not arise as the claim of the petitioners is not to enforce the right of promotion but to enforce a fundamental right conferring equality of opportunity for being considered for promotion. The nest point urged is that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are inapplicable to the present case as the Reserve Bank of India is not a 'State' as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution. This question has not been seriously argued before me presumably in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Electricity Board Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1857 . The case was argued before me on the assumption that the Reserve Bank is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. So far as the merits are concerned it is urged that there is no question of equality between the category of Clerks and the category of Stenographer. Though the Stenographers' scale of pay is higher than that of the Clerks, the two cadres are entirely different. It is stated that the nature of work, responsibilities, experience and channels of promotion are entirely different from each other. The requirement as to 15 years of service was introduced for the first time in 1964 on a fair consideration of all the relevant circumstances and it was introduced only for the promotion of efficiency of Stenographers and not for any purpose of discriminating them. Ever since 1964 this rule has not been challenged by any one in the whole of India till the filing of this writ petition. So far as the requirement of one year's training as a Clerk is concerned it was found essential to introduce such a clause in order to equip the Stenographers with the necessary training for supervision which is expected of a Grade II Officer. The main work entrusted to the Staff Officers. Grade II is supervision over the work of the clerical staff. It has been therefore decided that the Clerks could be recruited as Staff Officers. Grade II without any such training or requirement as to length of service. On the other hand, having regard to the nature work it has been decided by the Department that a Stenographer cannot be straight way equated to a Clerk to be promoted as a Staff Officer, Grade, II. It was therefore considered that in addition to 15 years' experience as a Stenographer he should also undergo one year's actual training as a Clerk. Though the work of the Stenographers in a way concerns the work done by the Clerks, it has been found that a Stenographer requires a longer period of service in order to equip himself with the nature of clerical work. It is therefore, submitted that this is mot a case where equals were treated unequally. The Stenographer and the clerk, belong to different classes and it is therefore permissible, to lay down different conditions for, promoting them to the posts of Staff Officers, Grade II. It was also stated as matter of history, that the Stenographers now stand a better chance than before. The previous practise was for the particular Officer to certify that his Stenographer possesses the necessary aptitude expected of a supervising official. As there was no yardstick to measure such an aptitude on the part of a Stenographer and having regard to the subjective satisfaction of different Officers under whom the Stenographers served, it was found that there was an element of arbitrariness resulting in injustice to the Stenographers in the matter of further promotions. It was accordingly decided to abolish the said practise and permit the Stenographers to appear at the qualifying examination along with the Clerks, so that they become eligible for promotion through a more a objective process. So far as the place allotted to the Stenographers in the panel viz, below the group of Clerks is concerned, it is submitted that the Clerks belong to a superior class when compared to the Stenographers and more readily suitable for being posted as Grade II Officers and that therefore can be no ground of complaint in this behalf on the part of the Stenographers. It was further submitted that this Circular has been issued after full consultation with the Unions and the offices all over India and that there are no valid grounds for granting the reliefs asked for in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners filed a reply-affidavit practically reiterating the contentions set out in the original writ petition.