ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27. 2. 92, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to declare the result of the writ petitioner within a periof of one month from the date of the order and if he dears the written test then he may be granted promotion/appointment in the Clerical Cadre on the basis of the merit list prepared by the Bank and if he is found entitled for appointment from the date when the person junior to him was promoted then he may be promoted from that date the learned Single Judge further directed the respondents to provide the petitioner the consequential benefits within three months from the date of decision.
(2.) MR. Nand Ram, the writ petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, joined the services of State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Raisinghnagar, on 29-3-82, as a Messanger (Class IV employee ). After joining the services, he passed Prathma Examination from Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Allahabad, in the year 1982. According to the pelilioner, vide letter dated 15. 3. 84, the Prathma Examination was recognised as equivalent to Matriculation by the Regional Manager of the Bank and an entry to this effect was made in the Service Record of the petitioner, which is clear from Annexure, III and Annexure, IV. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the Clerical Cadre Examination held by the Bank on 23. 10. 88 and the result of the writen test was declared in the month of January,1989, but the result of the petitioner was withheld. On enquiry, the Central Office, by its letter dated 6. 2. 89 informed the Branch Manager that the question of promotion of the persons having qualification of Prathma to the Clerical cadre for the year 1988, is pending consideration before the Central Office and the necessary decision will be conveyed as and when the matter is finalised. As the result of the petitioner was not declared, he filed the aforesaid writ petition. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the Prathma Examination of Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad, was treated as equivalent to Matriculation by the respondent No. 3 and the necessary entry regarding his qualification as Matriculation was made in the Service Record of the petitioner and he alongwith other persons, was allowed to appear in the Written Test for the Clerical Cadre. The respondents are, therefore, now, estopped from raising such objection, when once they allowed the petitioner to appear in the written lest on the basis of the aforesaid qualification. The reply by the bank, on the orther hand, is that Prathma Examination was never recognised as equivalent to Matriculation and it is only for the limited purpose i. e. for grant of honararium to the employees of the Bank that the Prathma Examination has been treated as equivalent to Hindi Standard of Matriculation and not equivalent to Full Matriculation. It has, also been slated in the reply on behalf of the Bank that the petitioner and other alike holding the qualification of Prathma, were provisionally allowed to appear in the written test for the Clerical Cadre Posts as several representations were received by the Head Office and were pending consideration before the Executive Committee of the Central Board. The Executive Committee, later on, decided not to treat the Prathma Examination from Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Allahabad, as equivalent to Matriculation. It has, also been stated in the reply that the Regional Manager was not competent to give relaxation in the matter and the principle of estoppel does not apply in the matter of the Rules. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 27. 2. 92, held that "as per the Reference Book on Staff Matters (consolidated upto 30th April,1987), the certificate of Prathma has been treated as equivalent to Matriculation only for the purpose of Hindi subjects then too, as per Clause (1) of Chapter XXII of the aforesaid Reference Book, the petitioner is entitled to appear in the written test to be held for promotion to the Clerical Cadre as his proficiency in English will be adjudged in the proposed test being held. It may be stated here that in this case, the petitioner was provisionally permitted to appear in the written test to be held for promotion to the Clerical Cadre and hence his proficiency in English must have been adjudged, his result should be declared by the respondents. " The learned Single Judge further observed that " the letter of the Regional Manager informing respondent No. 4 that the certificate of Prathma is equivalent to Matriculation has not been withdrawn by the respondent Bank and that was a conscious communication which was sent by the Head Office to the Branch Manager (respondent No. 4) and it was on the basis of this letter that the qualification of petitioner has been recorded in his service sheet and he has been informed that his qualification has been treated as equivalent to the Matriculation and, therefore, the respondents are, now estopped from taking the stand that this qualification is not equivalent to Matriculation. " The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of the written lest and if he clears the written test then to give him promotion in the Clerical Cadre in accordance with his merit and seniority. It is against this judgment dated 27. 2. 92 that the appellants have filed the present appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Prathma Examination was not treated as equivalent qualification to Matriculation by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank, which is competent to consider the case of equivalence of the various examinations for the purpose of appointment and promotion in the services of the Bank. The equivalence of Prathma Examination has been recognised by the Bank for Hindi Standard of Matriculation only and not for full Matriculation. The Bank has powers to prescribe the conditions of eligibility for promotion to the Clerical Cadre. It has also, the powers to decide the question of equivalence of particular examination and the decision is not open to judicial review. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance over: Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and others (1), Sardara Ram Dangi Vs. the District Judge, Jodhpur and others (2) and (Govind Ram Vs. Indian Bank through the Chief Officer (3) It has, also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the petitioner-respondent obtained the certificate of Prathma after joining the service and no assurance was given by the appellants to him and even the admission by the Regional Manager in regard to equivalence cannot bind the bank from contending that Prathma is not equivalent to Matriculation if it has not been treated as equivalent qualification under the Rules and, therefore, the priciple of estoppel is not applicable in the present case. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance over: Home Secretary to U. T. of Chandigarh and another Vs. Darshjit Singh Grewal and others (4) and Assistant Excise Commissioner and others Vs. Issac Peter and others The learned counsel , for Respondent (writ petitioner), on the other hand, has submitted that the communication Annexure, III issued by the Regional Manager accepting the certificate of Prathma as equivalent to Matriculation and making necessary entry in his Service Record and allowing the petitioner to appear in the Written Test, show that Prathma Examination was granted recognition as equivalent to Matriculation, by the Bank and, therefore, the petitioner and the other alike persons were allowed to appear in the written lest for promotion to the Clerical Cadre and, therefore, the appellants are, now, estopped from raising this contention and the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellants to declare the result of the petitioner and accord him promotion in case he clears the examination and stands in merit and seniority. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has placed reliance over: the State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Karan and others According to the learned counsel , for Respondent- petitioner, the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable in the present case till the communication Annexure, III and Annexure, IV are not revoked. In support of his contention, learned counsel , for Respondent-petitioner has placed reliance over: Union of India and others Vs. Godfrey Phillips Limited (7), Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. the University of Jodhpur and others (8) and M/s. Vij Besins Private Limited and another Vs. the State of Jammu & Kashmir We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE first contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-petitioner was having the Certificate of Prathma Examination only, which was never treated as equivalent to Matriculation and as he was not possessing the necessary qualification for promotion to the Clerical Cadre, therefore, his result was not declared and he cannot be promoted to that cadre for want of requisite qualification. Chapter XXII of the Reference Book on Staff Matters deals with the promotion of Subordinate Staff to the Clerical Cadre. Clause (i) of Chapter XXII provides that a written test will be held for the members of the subordinate staff, who fulfil the eligibility criteria for promotion to the clerical cadre. THE eligibility criteria laid down by these Rules: are (i) five years service as on 1st August in permanent capacity; and (ii) passed in S. S. C. /matriculation or equivalent examination as on 1st January. Those employees who have passed S. S. C examination from a recognised Board or University without English were eligible to appear in the test as their proficiency in English may be judged in the proposed test being held. THE Bank, also, started a Scheme to give incentive to its employees to acquire knowledge of Hindi. THE scheme known as "incentive Scheme for passing recognised Examination of Hindi" for its permanent full-time employees provides that the employees, who passed the recognised examination in Hindi, will be paid honararium as specified in sub-para (4) and under that Scheme, for the grant of honararium, Prathma examination of Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad, has been treated as equivalent to Hindi Standard in 'matriculation only. Thus, only a limited recognition of equivalence to Hindi Standard has been given to Prathma examination and not as full-fledged Matriculation. The necessary qualification, as prescribed under the Rules, is to pass S. S. C. /matriculation or equivalent examination. The petitioner had neither passed S. S. C. nor Matriculation Examination. He has only passed Prathma Examination from Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad. State Bank of India is a commercial Bank and it has to keep the minimum standard of eligibility for according promotions or appointments to the clerical cadre. The Bank has not issued any separate equivalence of the various examinations and has consiered only those examinations as equivalent to S. S. C. /matriculation which are so recongnised by the Government of India. Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad has issued a Circular showing the recognition of its various Degress/certificates given by the Central Government, State Government, other Universities and/or Boards running in India. As per this Circular (Annexure, R. l), Prathma examination of Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag has been recognised as equivalent to Matric for Hindi Standard only by the Central Government and not for complete Matriculation. The Press Note issued by the Government of India granting recognition to Hindi Examinations conducted by the Member Institute of "akhil Bhartiya Hindi Sanshtha Sangh", also, shows that the recognition to Prathma examination has been accorded only in regard to Standard of Hindi of S. S. C. examination and is not treated as full-fledged certificate of Matriculation or S. S. C, to which it is equated. Various representations were made to the Bank by its workers Unions for consideration of equivalence of Prathma examination to Matriculation or S. S. C examination. The competent authority of the Bank, i. e. the Exeutive Committee of the Central Board took a decision that Prathma examination conducted by Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad and the certificates of other examinations conducted by Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan cannot be treated as full-fledged certificate and accorded only a limited equivalence /recognition to the Prathma examination in regard to Standard of Hindi prescribed in the Matriculation Examination. In view of the decision of the Bank according only partial equivalence of Hindi Standard only, the employees, who have passed Prathma Examination are not entitled for promotion/appointment in the clerical cadre. The Hindi Sahitiaya Sammellan Prayag, Allahabad is not a University as established under the statute nor it is a 'deemed University' as established under Section 3 of the Universities Grant Commission Act, 1986. In Sardara Ram Dangi Vs. the District Judge, Jodhpur and others (Supra), a similar controversy came-up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. Sardara Ram Dangi was appointed as Class IV servant on 6-5-80 by the District Judge, Jodhpur. He passed the Prathma Examination of Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Allahabad in the year 1983 and that examination was recognised by the Government of Rajasthan as equivalent to Hindi Standard of Secondsary/matriculation examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The petitioner was not given promotion as Lower Division Clerk against 10% reserved quota for class IV employees. A representation was made by him, which was turned-down and he ultimately filed the writ petition. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. He preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal filed by Sardara Ram Dangi, held that " if we look at the order dated 13- 5-74 (Annexure 2) it would appear that Prathma Examination has been recognised as equivalent to High School or Higher Secondary/first Year for Hindi Standard only. The recognition is a limited recognition and is not a general recognition that Prathma Examination is equivalent to Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Only for Hindi Standard, it has been recognised qualification. On the basis of Annexure 2, in our opinion, the appellant's claim is unfounded and on the basis of Annexure 2, it cannot be founded that the appellant has passed the examination recognised by the State Government equivalent to Secondary School Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. " The Division Bench further observed that "hindi Sahitiya Sammellan, Prayag, may be an institution of National importance but in the absence of any notification in the official gazette, Hindi Sahitiya Sammellan cannot be treated as a 'deemed University' under Section 3 of the Universities Grant Commission Act, 1986. ' ;