RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. - (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. The respondent in its counter has admitted that at the time of issuance of Circular dated 10. 5. 1988 (Anx. 2), the petitioner was placed and classified under the category of S. S. L. C. passed or equivalent thereof under a mistaken impression that the Prathama Examination' conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sarnmelan, Allahabad was treated as equivalent to S. S. L. C. However, the recognised employees union during a discussion in June, 1988 pointed out the mistake that the 'prathama Examination' along with other Hindi Examinations were not equivalent to S. S. L. C and that those examinations were only recognised equivalent to the Hindi standard of S. S. L. C. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Government, whereupon the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department, Government of India vide its letter dated 24. 1. 1989 (Anx. R/l) clarified that the examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sarnmelan, Allahabad can not be considered as equivalent to S. S. L. C. in all subjects. It was only then that the respondent Bank was constrained to delete the name of such enployees, who had not passed the S. S. L. C. Examination including the petitioner from the list of eligible candidates. It was asserted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner, therefore, can not claim any right of promotion to the clerical cadre as he lacks the basic qualification and that mere mention of petitioner's name at S. No. 6 in the list did not confer any right on him because in the said list also his qualification has been shown as Prathama and not as S. S. L. C. It was asserted that earlier mistaken promotions of the employees do not give any right to the petitioner, that on that basis he cannot be considered as having passed S. S L. C. Examination and that the respondent Bank was also contemplating suitable course of action in respect of those employees. The respondent further pleaded that persons, whose appointments, the petitioner now wants to challenge claiming himself to be senior to them were necessary parties in this writ petition and their non-impleament is fatal. The petitioner in his rejoinder has alleged that respondent Bank has deliberately concealed the names of those persons, who passed the qualification 'prathama' and who have already been promoted in the clerical cadre in the year 1987. He has further alleged that in the list of eligible members of subor-dinate staff enclosed with the Circular dated 21. 9. 1987 (Anx. 6), the name of the petitioner was not included. He also filed letter dated 20. 1 1988 (Anx. 7) issued by the respondent along with the list of sub-staff candidates, who were promoted to the clerical cadre in the S. S L. C. passed category in the year 1987, wherein many persons having passed 'prathama Examination' were promoted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. Shri G. N. Mathur has specifically conceded that in view of the letter dated 27. 10. 1987 (Annex. R/2) issued by the Ministry of Human Resouces Development Department and the letter dated 24. 1. 1989 (Annex. R/1) issued by Ministry of Finance Department, Government of India, 'prathama Examination' conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was recognised for Hindi subject only as equivalent to the Hindi standard of S. S. L. C. and that the same cannot be treated as equivalent to S. S. L. C. However, his sole contention is that since persons having qualification of 'prathama Examination' have already been promoted by the respondent Bank in the clerical cadre in the year 1987, there exists no valid reason to exclude the name of the petitioner from the list of eligible candidates and in not considering his case for the said promotion. According to him a differential treatment has been given to the petitioner and he has been subjected to a hostile discrimination, which offends the mandatory provisions 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. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions. The solitary question to be determined in this writ petition is as to whether simply because in the year 1987, the respondent Bank had promoted members of sub-staff having passed the 'prathama Examination' only to the clerical cadre despite the fact that their qualification was not equivalent to that of S. S. L. C. under a mistaken belief, does the petitioner has a right to be considered and promoted to the clerical cadre for the vacancies accrued during the year 1988 ? A perusal of letter dated 27. 10. 87 (Annex. R/2) issued by Ministry of Human Resourcraes Development and the press note dated 18. 2. 1970 atached therewith firmly establishes that the 'prathama Examination' conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was recognised only for Hindi subject equivalent to S. S. L. C. and not for all subjects of the S. S. L. C. right from the year 1970. The Ministry of Finance vide its letter dated 24. 1. 1989 (Annex. R/l) has also clarified this position to the respondent Bank. Therefore it is crystal clear that since the year 1970, 'prathama Examination' conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not equivalent to S. S. L. C. As per provisions of the Promotion Policy Settlement (dated 3. 9. 1987) entered between the Federation of Indian Banks and the Federation of Indian Ban Employees Union, only those employees of the sub-staff, who have passed the S. S. L. C. or equivalent examination and who have completed four years of service as on 31. 12. 1987 in order of seniority in service were entitled to be considered for promotion to the clerical cadre without passing the prescribed test. Therefore, apparently the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification required for such promotion and as such he does not have any right for consideration and promotion to the clerical cadre, without passing the prescribed test. The petitioner has not given the names and requisite details of any person, who was junior to him and who has been considered and promoted to the clerical cadre on the basis of his educational qualification of 'prathama Examination' for the year 1988. He has neither challenged the promotion of such employees having Prathama Examination qualification and who were promoted in the clerical cadre for the year 1987 in this writ petition, nor has given the details of such persons nor has impleaded them as parly. It also stands amply proved that the respondent Bank after receiving the clarification from the Ministry of Finance vide its letter dated 24. 1. 1989 (Annex. R/l) has not recognised the 'prathama Examination' as equivalent to S. S. L. C. and has not considered and given promotion to any person, junior to the petitioner in the clerical cadre for the vacancies occurred during the year 1988 & thereafter with out the prescribed test. ;