GOVIND RAM Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the peittioner has prayed that the respondent Bank be directed to treat him eligible to be promoted in the clerical cadre under terms contained in the Promotion Policy Settlement dated 3. 9. 1987 entered into with the Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union and promote him in the clerical cadre from the date personsjunior to him have been promoted.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner, who is a Member of Scheduled Caste, entered in the service of the respondent-Bank as a Class IV employee on 31. 5 1976 and was posted at its Jodhpur Branche. At the time of his initial appointment, he possessed a middle school certificate. However, he qualified the "prathama Examination" by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad on 26. 7. 1985. He, therefore, submitted his mark-sheet to the respondent and accordingly entries in his service record were made and intimated to him vide letter dated 23. 11. 1987 (Annx. 1 ). It is not in dispute that in terms of the provisions of the Promotion Policy Settlement dated 3. 9. 1987. the members of the subordinate cadre staff were made eligible to be promoted to the cerical cadre. The respondent vide its circular letter dated 10. 5. 1988 (Anx. 2) intended effecting such promotions from subordinate cadre staff for the year 1988 to fourty employees in the order of seniority in service out of employees, who had passed the S. S. L. C. or its equivalent examination and who had completed four years of service as on 31. 12. 1987 and twenty employees in order of seniority out of employees, who had studied in a school upto S. S. L. C. or its equivalent and appeared and failed in such examination and had completed six years of service as on 31. 12. 1987 subject to their passing a test and 40 employees in order of seniority service out of the employees who did not fall under the above two categories and who had completed eight years of service as on 31. 12. 87 subject to their passing a test. The name of the petitioner appeared at S. No. 6 in general category No. 1, treating Prathama Examination as equivalent examination to that of S. S. L. C. Thereafter on representation, his name was shown in category No. 1 of the employees belonging to the Scheduled Caste vide letter dated 31. 5. 1988 (Anx. 3 ). The respondent promoted certain employees of the subordinate cadre staff to the clerical cadre in category No. 1, wherein petitioner's name did not find place. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation and the respondent vide its letter dated 8. 2. 1989 (Anx. 4) intimated that as per clarification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development. Govt. of India dated 24 10. 1987 (Anx. R/2) and letter dated 24 1. 1989 (Anx. R/l) issued by Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Govt. of India, the Prathama Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sarnmelan, Allahabad is not equivalent to S. S. L. C. and that same has been recognised only for Hindi subject and hence for the purpose of promotion his name was incorrectly included in the category of Sub-ordmate Staff, who have passed S. S. L. C. Examination and that now his name has been placed under the "other than S. S. L. C. passed & failed" category, as per Promotion Policy Settlement. The respondent, therefore, vide its letter dated 8. 2. 1989 (Anx. 4) intimated the petitioner that he will have to pass the promotion test and thereafter his case will be considered for promotion and the promotion will be given protecting his seniority. It is the case of the petitioner that number of sub-ordinate staff employees having similar qualification namely 'prathma' have been promoted by the respondent on numerous occasions, and therefore, there was no reason for denying him consideration for the promotion to the clerical staff. According to him he has been subjected to hostile discrimination, which is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank have emphatically asserted that since admittedly the petitioner has not passed the S. S. L. C. Examination or its equivalent, he lacks minimum educational qualification necessary for considering his case in the category of the employees, who have passed the S. S. L. C. with four years of service for promotion to the clerical cadre. They have alleged that under a mistaken belief that the 'prathama Examination' was equivalent to S. S. L. C petitioner's name was included in the list appended with Annexure-2 for the year 1988, but that itself does not confer any right on him for promotion. They have maintained that after the clarification sought from the Ministry of Finance vide their letter dated 24. 1. 1989 (Annex. R/l) not a single employee having qualification of 'prathama Examination, has been considered and promoted to the clerical cadre and that suitable action is also being taken in respect of those employees, who have qualified the 'prathama Examination' and have been earlier promoted to the clerical cadre for the year 1987.