ASHOK KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 19.2.96, contained in Annexure -4, by which his representation for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) has been rejected by the Reserve Bank of India, Patna Branch, Patna.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that the petitioner was appointed in the Bank in 1969 as A.C. Plant Attendant and thereafter he was promoted as A.C. Plant Operator in the year 1983. Thereafter the respondent Bank took steps for promotion to the next promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the case of the petitioner was not considered because he did not possess the qualification of Diploma in the concerned faculty. Thereafter he represented the matter, which has been rejected by the order contained in Annexure 4.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY petitioner has ten years of experience. The only question as to whether he is Diploma holder or not. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that he has obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate under the provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961 and also the National Trade Certificate from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, which are equivalent to Diploma and in this connection he has brought to the notice of the Court the memorandum (Annexure 7) of the Government of India, Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour, wherein the trade certificates awarded by the various authorities to the trainees of the Training Institutes/Centres run by them for the training of persons at the level of Craftmen has been recognised as certificate. It is clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India that the petitioner did not possess Diploma as required by the Rule and, as such, he was not eligible for promotion and accordingly his case was not considered. The said memorandum has no application to petitioner 's case. The Respondent Bank has its own Rules and Regulations and it is not an establishment of Government. This apart, the said memorandum does not show that the training taken by the petitioner is equivalent to Diploma in the concerned faculty. Thus in my view as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification or consideration for his promotion to the higher post, no case for interference is made out.