Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for the following grievances and redressal therefor : Because of the terms being clauses 10 and 11 of the letter of appointment petitioners' right of being considered for their promotion from the post of sub-staff to clerical cadre has been denied. Despite repeated representation the respondent-Bank has not withdrawn and/or cancelled the aforesaid two terms. The said 2 clauses of the letters of appointment are unfair, unjust and further the same were forced to be agreed upon by the petitioners taking advantage of the unequal bargaining power of the petitioners at the time of their appointment. The fact of the case of summarised as follows : The writ petitioner prior to 1991 were engaged by the respondent Bank temporarily as Canteen Boys-cum-Cooks in its staff canteen. Despite their continuous services being rendered, the respondent No. 1 Bank did not regularise and/or absorb. Naturally in the year 1991 the writ petitioners herein previously made an application in a pending writ petition being matter No. 3312 of 1991 of this Court. By an order dated 13th December, 1991, His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Mallick (as His Lordship then was), was pleased to dispose of the said application by directing the respondent Bank amongst others as follows : "However, if the present petitioners are similarly situated and circumstanced with the writ petitioners of the above writ petition then the Bank shall treat this memorial sympathetically and on taking proper interview may consider as to whether they can also be absorbed provided there are existing vacancies and consider their appointment after observing necessary formalities."
(2.) In deference to the said order it appears that the respondent Bank had invited applications from the writ petitioners were to take examination. The writ petitioners were found to be suitable and they were given appointment by issuing a letter dated 29th October, 1991. The said letter of appointment being annexure "D" to the writ petition speaks so far as it relates to para 1 thereof as follows : "With reference to your application for employment in the Bank and subsequent selection by regular test. We are pleased to offer you an appointment in the Bank's service exclusively as Canteen Boy-cum-Cook in subordinate staff cadre with effect from the date you join in the Bank's service which should not be earlier than 1.11.1991 but not later than 30.11.1991."
(3.) There are various terms and conditions numbering 25 provided in the said letter of appointment. It is the admitted position that this letter of appointment has been accepted by the writ petitioners. So admittedly those terms and conditions became the governing factor of the concluded contract of service. Some of the relevant and material terms and conditions may be quoted for the purpose of this case, as follows : (a) Clause 7 : You will be required to work either as canteen boy or as canteen cook or both at any part of the day or may be decided by the bank/canteen committee. The Bank has the liberty to post you and utilise your services in any other assignment suitable to your status, qualification and experience as well. (b) Clause 10 : You will not be entitled to any additional increment benefits for acquiring higher qualification. (c) Clause 11 : You will not be eligible for assignments of duties carrying special allowances, change of cadre/designation, promotion from sub-staff to clerical cadre etc. etc.;