- (1.) This intra-court appeal by the employer-appellant UCO Bank is directed against the order dated 06.09.1999 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition (CWP No.1410/1997) filed by the employeerespondent Jagdish Narain on his grievance against denial of promotion because of a debarment clause contained in the circular dated 19.10.1989 (Annex.1) whereby a casual worker, when absorbed in the subordinate staff, was declared ineligible to be considered for promotion for all time in future, if having higher qualification on the date of his first engagement. The learned Single Judge has found such a debarment clause, taking away altogether the right of the employee to be considered for promotion, illegitimate and illegal; and, while striking the same down, has directed the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent (writ petitioner) for promotion.
(2.) It could be noticed at the outset that the aforesaid circular dated 19.10.1989, containing the questioned debarment clause, came to be issued pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the management of the appellant-Bank and the workers' unions on 12.10.1989. The background of such settlement had been that the unions were demanding regular appointment for the casual workers who were engaged on daily wages basis and after discussions, the appellant-Bank agreed to absorb in the subordinate staff certain casual workers, who would satisfy the given eligibility criteria like that of period of working, i.e., 240 days or more with or without interruption during a period of 3 years preceding the settlement; that of age on the date of first engagement, i.e., minimum 18 and maximum 26 years with applicable relaxation to SC/ST categories; and that of the requisite educational qualification i.e., of minimum 8th standard and not passed SSLC or equivalent on the date of first engagement. The impugned debarment clause came to be mentioned in the said circular as a part of the saving clause appended to the education qualification criterion; and being the bone of contention, is reproduced as under:- " E ducational Qualification: Such Casual Worker should have had a minimum qualification of 8th Standard and not passed SSLC or equivalent examination on the day of his first engagement as Casual Worker. Saving Clause: Education Qualification: Any person who after being engaged by the Bank as Casual Worker has acquired higher qualification such as SSLC/SSC/Matriculation or higher qualification shall not be disqualified for absorption in terms of this Settlement merely on the ground that he has higher qualification. However, he would not be eligible to be considered for promotion to Clerical Cadre for a period of five years from the date of his absorption. Further, any person who was Matriculate or higher qualified on the date of his first engagement as casual worker shall not be disqualified for absorption in terms of this Settlement merely on the ground that he has higher qualification. However, such persons on absorption would not be eligible to be considered for promotion as also selection to any functional special allowance post for all the time in future. Any person who has qualification less than 8th Standard may be absorbed as sweeper-cum-peon. However, he shall not be eligible for any functional special allowance posts for all the time in future. However, if such person upon absorption acquires Educational Qualification of 8th Standard he would be entitled for being absorbed as peon as per the usual procedure applicable for Sweepers. This Saving Clause, however, shall not confer any rights on any existing employee in the Subordinate Cadre to declare their suppressed qualification if any for regularization."
(3.) The facts and the background aspects relevant for the issue involved in this matter could be taken note of, in brief, as follows: The appellant-Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The writ petitioner was initially engaged as subordinate staff at Johari Bazar, Jaipur Branch of the appellant-Bank on daily wages basis in the year 1987. At the time of his initial engagement, the writ petitioner was a graduate having obtained the degree of Bachelor of Commerce in the year 1986. Later on, in terms of the aforesaid circular dated 19.10.1989, the application moved by the writ petitioner for regular appointment in the Bank in the subordinate staff cadre came to be granted and, by the order dated 05.04.1991 (Annex.2), he was taken on the post of Peon-cum-Farrash but, with the stipulation that he would abide by the terms stated in the appointment order including the aforesaid term debarring him from promotion forever. However, on 09.04.1996, after completing 5 years of service in terms of the appointment order aforesaid, the writ petitioner made an application for considering him for promotion to the clerical post. The appellant-Bank informed the writ petitioner of rejection of his application by the letter dated 21.05.1996 (Annex.3) while observing that in view of the aforesaid debarment clause in the circular dated 19.10.1989, he was ineligible to be considered for promotion and for selection to any functional special allowance post for all the time after absorption. The writ petitioner made another representation dated 15.07.1996 (Annex.4) against denial of promotion; and the same was also rejected by the appellant- Bank under the communication dated 02.12.1996 (Annex.5) reiterating that he was not entitled to be considered for promotion so also for selection to any functional special allowance post for all time to come. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged the said debarment clause in the circular dated 19.10.1989 by way of the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal; and prayed for quashing of the impugned debarment clause with consequential reliefs.;