JUDGMENT 1. As common questions of law and facts do arise in all the aforesaid four writ petitions, they are disposed of together by one single judgment of mine. 2. It is not necessary for me to set-out in detail the facts narrated in each writ petition, suffice it would be to state, in brief', the relevant facts of writ petition No. 509/83 filed by Prahlad Rai Khenika against the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The facts are as follows: 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk in the erstwhile Bank of Bikaner Ltd. on 20-9-1956 and got promotions from time to time. The Bank of Bikaner Ltd was reconstituted as the State Bank of Bikaner and after some time was amalgamated in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and came to be known as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. On 1-2-1972 the petitioner was promoted as Officer Grade-II in the said Bank and thereafter he again got promotion as Officer Grade I on 1st March, 1977 after qualifying written test and getting through the interview. Thereafter the petitioner became eligible for promotion to Officer Grade-A on 1st March, 1982 because he had cleared both parts of C.A.I.IB examination, which was considered to be equivalent to five years' experience of working as Officer Grade I. The petitioner gained experience of 7 years line assignment also. But the Central Government appointed a commit the known as "Pillai Committee" to suggest reforms in the service conditions of of the Bank employees and the Pillai Committee thereupon submitted a detailed report suggesting several reforms in the service conditions of the entire Bank Officers. This report was accepted by the Board of Directors of the State Bank of Bikaner and ,Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the '-Bank") and on the basis of the Committee report the Bank framed certain regulations known as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. (herein-after referred to as the -Regulations of 1979") In pursuance of these Regulations of 1979 the grades of the Bank were revised and new pattern of grades was brought into force with effect from 1st October, 1979. Regulation No. 4 of 1979 dealt with grades and scales of pay and is reproduced below: "Regulation 4: Grades and scales of pay4. (1). Regulation No. 4 of 1979 dealt with grades and scales of pay and is reproduced below: "Regulation 4: Grades and scales of pay4. (1). There shall be the following four grades for officers with the scales of pay specified against each of the grands:- (A) Top Executive Scale VII Rs. 3000-125-3500 Grade Scale VI Rs. 2750-125-3250 (B) Senior Management Scale V Rs. 2500-100-2700 Grade Scale IV Rs. 2000-100-2400 (C) Middle Management Scale III Rs. 1800-75-2250 Grade Scale II Rs. 1200-70-1550-75-2000 (D) Junior Management Grade Scale I Rs. 700-40-900-50-1100- EB-1200-60-1800. "2 Nothing in sub-regulation (1) shall be construed as requiring the Bank to have at all times officers serving in all these grades. "3 Unless otherwise directed by the Board or the Executive Committee, the pay of an Officer on his appointment to a grade or scale shall be the pay of that grade or scale: Provided that the officer shall enter that grade or scale either at the minimum or at a stage next above his pay in the previous grade or scale at the time of his appointment to the new grade or scale, which ever is higher." Regulation No. 6(1) laid down that every post of an Officer in the Bank shall be categorised by the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the competent authority as falling in any one of the grades or scales mentioned in Regulation 4 having regard to the responsibilities and functions exercised and such categorisation may be reviewed from time to time by the aforesaid authorities mentioned above. A proviso, however, was appended to Regulation No. 6(1), which gave a mandate that the categorisation of the post in existence on the appointed date i.e. 1st October, 1979 shall be done before the expiry of two years from that date and shall in respect of the posts in the senior management and top executive grades, be done by a committee appointed for the purpose by the Board or the executive Committee. 4. Regulation No. 6(2) of the Regulations of 1979 further provided that for the purpose of categorisation of the posts under sub-regulation (1) every branch or Officer of the Bank shall be classified by the Bank in accordance with the criteria to be approved by the Board or the Executive Committee as small, medium, large, very large or exceptionally large category. Regulation No. 6(2) of the Regulations of 1979 further provided that for the purpose of categorisation of the posts under sub-regulation (1) every branch or Officer of the Bank shall be classified by the Bank in accordance with the criteria to be approved by the Board or the Executive Committee as small, medium, large, very large or exceptionally large category. Chapter III of the Regulations of 1979, dealt with the placement and fitment of existing Officers in the new grades and scales of pay. Regulation No. 7 is reproduced below:- "7. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in column I of the table given in schedule I to these regulations shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grade and scale specified there-against in column 2 of the schedule: Provided that any difficulties or anomalies arising out of the above placement shall be referred to a committee of such persons as the Board or Executive Committee may appoint and the decision of that committee in this regard shall be final." 5. As per Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1979, every existing officer placed in any of the new grades and scale of pay shall be fitted at such stage in the new scale of pay corresponding to the existing grade and scale as specified in Schedule I to Regulations of 1979. Schedule I is reproduced below:- SCHEDULE I (See Regulation 7) "Placement of existing officers in the new Grades and scales in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Grade and scale immediately before the appointed date Grade and scales in which placed. 1. General Managers Scale Rs. 1800-75-2100-2200 Top Executive Grade Scale VI Rs. 2750-125-3250 2. Assistant General Manager Scale 1725-75-2100 Senior Management Grade Scale V Rs. 2500-100-2700 3. Officers 'A' Grade promoted as such or before 31st December, 1975 Scale Rs. 1200-60-1500-75-1950 Senior Management Grade Scale IV on Rs. 2000-100-2400 4. Other Officers 'A' grade Scale Rs. 1200-60-1500-75-1950 Middle Management Grade scale III Rs. 1800-75-2250 5. Officers Grade I promoted as such from Officers Grade II on or before 31st December, 1972 and other Officers Grade I confirmed as such on or before 31st December, 1972 Scale Rs. 500-40-620-45-755-95-850-50-1050-EB- 1100-50- 1150-60-1330 Middle Management Grade Scale II Rs. 1200-70-1550-75-2000 6. Other Officers Grade I and Officers Grade II Scale--Officers Grade 1 Rs. 1800-75-2250 5. Officers Grade I promoted as such from Officers Grade II on or before 31st December, 1972 and other Officers Grade I confirmed as such on or before 31st December, 1972 Scale Rs. 500-40-620-45-755-95-850-50-1050-EB- 1100-50- 1150-60-1330 Middle Management Grade Scale II Rs. 1200-70-1550-75-2000 6. Other Officers Grade I and Officers Grade II Scale--Officers Grade 1 Rs. 500-40-620-45-755-95-850-50-1050-EB-1100-1150-60-1130 and Officers Grade II Rs. 500-40-620-45-980-50-1030. Junior Management Grade Scale I - Rs. 700-40-900-50-1100-EB-1200-60-1800 Explanation : Officers appointed to special grade as specialists or technical persons, if they are in a scale exactly corresponding to the existing scale covered by the provisions above, will be placed in the corresponding new grade and scale. Other such officers, who are not in a grade or scale or pay exactly corresponding to an existing scale of pay covered above shall be placed in the new scale of pay in such manner as may be decided by the Executive Committee." 6. A further Circular was issued by the Bank on 14th August, 1980 by which all the officers Grade-I, who were promoted/confirmed as such on before 1st October, 1975 shall be deemed to have been fitted in the Middle Management Grade II as from 1st January, 1980. 7. The petitioner's grievance is that before these Regulations came into force, Grade I Officers would normally be considered for promotion to Officers Grade A, but after the coming into force of these Regulations, Grade I Officers, who were promoted /confirmed as such on or before 1st October. 1975 were automatically fitted in the Middle Management Grade II and Officers who were promoted in the erstwhile Grade I after October 1975 were to be fitted in the Junior Management Scale No. I. The petitioner who was promoted to Officer Grade-I on 1st March, 1977 has been thus excluded from being fitted in Middle Management Grade-II and was fitted in junior Management Grade I with effect from 1st October, 1979 on the maximum of the pay scale (total emoluments) vide order dated 23rd May, 1980, whereas, he became eligible for promotion to the erstwhile Grade 'A' which is now equivalent to Middle Management Grade III and Senior Management Grade IV. In this manner the petitioner and a large number of Officers have suffered a great deal on account Of arbitrary fixation in the new pattern. In this manner the petitioner and a large number of Officers have suffered a great deal on account Of arbitrary fixation in the new pattern. The Petitioner was anticipating that as the Officers, who were in Grade I upto October, 1975 were automatically fitted in the Middle Management Grade-II, he also would be treated in the same way by the Bank. But the Bank introduced a new criteria on 19th May, 81 and instead of treating the petitioner equally with the said officers, asked the petitioner to face selection even for an ad-hoc promotion, whereas, such criteria was not adopted for the officers, who were in the erstwhile Grade I upto October, 1975. 8. Aggrieved by the Circular. the petitioner protested against the introduction of the new criteria but his representation was turned down and in the year 1981 the petitioner received an intimation asking him to appear before the Selection Board for interview for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade II on ad hoc basis. The petitioner, thereupon, filed a civil suit in the court of Munsif' No. 2, Jaipur for declaration and permanent injunction on 28th February, 1982, but the learned Munsif did not pass all order on the application for temporary injunction and postponed the decision thereof to 7 Match, 1983. Hence the petitioner invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by way of writ petition on the grounds mentioned in pata No. 23(i) to (xviii) and has made the following prayer: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may very graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof to- (a) quash Regulations 6 and 7 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 and to declare the same as ultra vices of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (b) declare the Circular dated 14th August, 80 (Annexure 1) as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the same; (c) declare the circular dated 19th May, 1981 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to quash the same; (d) declare that the petitioner was entitled to be placed in Middle Management Grade III on the basis of his experience in Service and having obtained qualifications of C. A. 1. I. B. examination and seven years experience in line assignment and his being senior and better qualified in comparison to the 57 persons, who have been placed in Middle Management Grade II and do not possess qualifications of C.A.I I B. (c) in the alternative to the prayer (d) above it may be declared that the petitioner was entitled to be placed in atleast Middle Management Grade-II and he treated senior to those 57 officers by taking into account the petitioner's qualifications of C.A.I.I B." 9. A written reply to S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 509 of 1983 was filed on behalf of the non-petitioners wherein it was admitted that the petitioner was promoted as Officer Grade-II (old pattern) on 1-2-1972 and, later on, was promoted as Officer Grade-I (old pattern) on 1-3-1977, but it was denied that lie became eligible for promotion to Officer Grade-I (old pattern) on 1.3.1982 because on and from 1.10.1979 the existing officers of the non-petitioner Bank including the petitioner were placed in new grade according to Schedule I of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers Regulations 1979, which were framed under section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, herein after referred to as the Act of 1059. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner opted for new grades on 5.5 1980 vide Annexure R. I upon being given an option tinder Regulation 12 of the Regulations of 1979 and so no question of his being eligible for promotion to officers Grade I (old pattern) does aeries. Besides it was pleaded that the non-petitioner Bank does not fell within the definition of 'other authorities' under Article. 12 of the Constitution of India and so protection under Articles 14 and 16 the constitution is not available to the petitioner. It was further alleged in the reply that by Circular dated 19.5.1981 adhoc promotions to 125 vacancies in Middle Management Grade-II were sought to be made having regard to the need of the non petitioner Bank and to provide suitable promotion and opportunity to officers in he scale of,Junior Management Grade I. It was therefore. circulated that officers in the old scale Grade I as oft 31.12.1978, would he considered for promotion to Middle Management Grade-II on ad-hoc basis. circulated that officers in the old scale Grade I as oft 31.12.1978, would he considered for promotion to Middle Management Grade-II on ad-hoc basis. This was done after having discussion with the associate Bank officers Association at central office of the State Bank of India on 18.3.1981 vide Annexure R. 4. The officers, which the non-petitioner Bank had called for interview for promotion to Middle Management Grade III are only those officers who were in the Middle Management Grade-II as on 1-1-1980. Hence, the petitioner can not have any grievance against the interviews which are now being held by virtue of the circular of the non-petitioner Bank dated 10.1.1983. It was further urged in the reply that regulation No. 7 and Schedule I of the Regulations of 1979 are not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, nor arc the dates fixed as 31.12.1972 and 1.10 1975 arbitrary under the Schedule Likewise, Annexures 2 and 3 are based on reasonable classifications keeping in view the needs of the non- petitioner Bank and so Regulation No. 79 of the Regulations of 1979 is not arbitrary. In short, the stand taken by the nun-petitioner in its reply is that the petitioner was promoted to Officer Grade-I (old pattern) on 1.3.1977 and correctly fitted in Junior Management Grade-III on 23.5.1980 with effect from 1.3.1977 as lie himself had opted for this new grade as per Regulations of 1979. According to the non-petitioner Bank there has been reasonable classification in fixing dates as per circular dated 14.8.1980 vide Annexure R. 2 and there is no discrimination in fixing the dates of eligibility for promotion in view of section 50 of the Act of 1959 and Regulation No. 17 of the Regulations of 1979 which empower the non- petitioner Bank to do so. The non-petitioner Bank, therefore, prayed that it is not open for the petitioner to challenge by way of this writ petition the interview for promotion to Middle Management Grade-III from Middle Management Grade II, because the petitioner is in .Junior Management Glade I and was never in Middle Management Grade II on or before 1.10.1980 or even today. All officers who have item called for interview are persons senior to the petitioner as per seniority list prepared by the Bank under Regulation No. 18 of the Regulations of 1979 and the petitioner did not challenge this list. All officers who have item called for interview are persons senior to the petitioner as per seniority list prepared by the Bank under Regulation No. 18 of the Regulations of 1979 and the petitioner did not challenge this list. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has already availed of a remedy by way of a suit which was withdrawn by him and so he cannot get the same relief by way of filing this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed summarily on this score alone. 10. In S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 925 of 1981 filed by R.P. Chabra petitioner, the facts in brief are that Mr. R.P. Chabra, petitioner, was promoted as officer Grade I (old pattern) on 1.11.1976 and upon corning into force of the Regulations of 1979 whit effect from 1.10.1979 he was placed in junior Management Grade Scale No. 1 of the Schedule. Later on, the petitioner was called upon by the non petitioner Bank to appear in an interview on 10. 6. 1981 for the purpose of his selection and promotion in the Middle Management Grade Scale No II. The petitioner's grievance is that the non-petitioner Bank has no right to subject the petitioner to an interview for the purpose of promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale No. II because the petitioner has already faced an interview for becoming an officer of Grade I of the old pattern. According to the petitioner, there is no justification to discriminate between officers Grade I (old pattern) who were appointed on or before 31. 12. 1972 or 1. 10. 1975 and those appointed as officers Grade I subsequent to I. 10. 1975 for the purpose of placement or promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale II (new pattern) as the dates fixed by the non-petitioner Bank are clearly arbitrary and there is no reasonable basis for the said classification of officers who were appointed and confirmed as Grade I officers upto 1. 10. 1975 and the officers appointed and confirmed after 1.10.1975. 11. The facts of S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 982 of 1981 filed by Nand Lal Sharma are more or less identical with the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 925 of 1981 filed by R.P. Chabra and, therefore, need not be repeated. 12. 10. 1975 and the officers appointed and confirmed after 1.10.1975. 11. The facts of S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 982 of 1981 filed by Nand Lal Sharma are more or less identical with the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 925 of 1981 filed by R.P. Chabra and, therefore, need not be repeated. 12. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1981 filed by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers Organisation through its Chairman Shri J.S. Chauhan the facts are almost the same as in the writ petition mentioned above. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the differentiation sought to be made by the non-petitioner Bank in the matter of promotion/placement in the Middle Management Grade Scale No. II and Middle Management Grade Scale III is absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory because it is not based on any reason and does not have any nexus with the object of promotion of officers to higher grade. According to the petitioner, in this writ petition officers who have been promoted to old Grade Scale No. 1 after 1. 1. 75 have been given an absolutely different treatment so far as their placement in Middle Management Grade Scale No. II is concerned. The non-petitioner Bank, according to the petitioner has arbitrarily chosen dates for drawing a line of distinction between officers belonging to one and the same class and so the petitioner has claimed the same reliefs as are claimed by the petitioners in the other writ petitions mentioned above. It will not be out of place to mention that the non-petitioner Bank has contested all these writ petitions by taking similar or identical stand taken by it in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 509 of 1983. 13. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in all these four writ petitions and perused the record. Before dealing with the main contentions put forward before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I think it proper to decide some preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank regarding the maintainability of these writ petitions. Before dealing with the main contentions put forward before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I think it proper to decide some preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank regarding the maintainability of these writ petitions. The first preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank before me is that the petitioners have not exhausted the statutory remedies available to them and so ordinarily the High Court should refuse to entertain these writ petitions. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank invited my attention to Regulation No. 13 of the Regulations of 1979 and contended on the strength of its provisions that if the petitioners were aggrieved by fitments accorded to them in the new scales of pay, they could prefer an appeal to the Committee constituted by the Board or the Executive Committee for this purpose within 30 days of the receipt of the communication of the fitments accorded to them and failure of the petitioners to have resort to this alternative remedy constitutes a good reason for refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction, in the opinion of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that Regulation No. 13 of the Regulations of 1979 provides for an appeal only against an order of fitment accorded to any officer in the new scales of pay, which is different from the placement of existing officers on the appointed date in corresponding grades and scales under the Regulations. Besides, as the petitioners have challenged the validity of Regulation No. 7 of the Regulations of 1979 and the resolution passed by the Executive Committee, and as the writ petitions relate to the breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, the existence of an alternative remedy, if any, is no bar to the High Court exercising its powers tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of their above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an authority of the Supreme Count (1) R.S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1974 SC 259 ) . 14. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. In my opinion, the principle of another alternative remedy has no application to these cases, because in these writ petitions, regulations Nos. 14. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. In my opinion, the principle of another alternative remedy has no application to these cases, because in these writ petitions, regulations Nos. 6 and 7 of the Regulations of 1979 and certain resolutions passed by the non-petitioner Bank are sought to be quashed on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Regulation No. 13 of the Regulations of 1979 makes a provision for appeal by an officer if he is aggrieved by the fitment accorded to him in the new scales of pay. The officer has no right to appeal under Regulation No. 13 against his placement under Regulation No. 7 on the appointed date in corresponding grades and scales provided in Schedule I appended to the Regulations of 1979. It cannot be lost sight of that an appeal filed by an officer aggrieved by the fit met accorded to him in the new scales of pay shall be heard and decided by a Committee constituted by the Board or the Executive Committee for this purpose. While nearing the appeal such a Committee, in my opinion, is not competent to decide the question of validity or invalidity of a resolution passed by the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors and cannot declare Regulations Nos. 6 and 7 to be violative of Article: 14 and 16 of the Constitution, because the Committee is to decide only whether a fitment accorded to any officer in the new scales of pay is correct or not. Consequently, the failure of the petitioners to have resort to the alternative remedy is not of material significance in these cases, especially when the alternative remedy pointed out by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank is not equally efficacious and adequate. 15. Another preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank is relating to delay on the part of these petitioners in filing these writ petitions. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank, the placement of the petitioners in the new grade and scale of pay (junior management scale No. I) was made as early as in the month of April, 1980 with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1979, and the petitioners did not question the placement till May or June, 1981. 16. 16. I have considered the above preliminary objection and found it untenable in view of the facts and the circumstances of this case. It is no doubt true that Articles 226 of the Constitution of India has prescribed no period of limitation, but, ordinarily, an aggrieved party who wants the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 must be very vigilant and apply for relief soon after the right sought to be protected is infringed or violated. If the aggrieved party fails to do so and does not afford satisfactory explanation for the delay then the writ petition filed by him is liable to be thrown out on the ground of laches and negligence. It will not he out of place to mention that the question of delay in making an application and the question whether the delay is justified or excusable depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf. In the instant cases, on a consideration of the facts and the circumstances, it appears that there is no undue delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the writ petitions. The aggrieved party should have a reasonable time within which to move the High Court. Here the implementation of the Pillai Committee recommendations for determining the terms and conditions of the service of the officers of the Bank was approved by the Board of Directors vide its resolution contained in Circular No. PER/80 dated 10.4.1980. This was followed by another Circular dated 20.5.1980, which contained certain clarifications in respect of Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations of 1979. Another Circular was issued on 14.8.1980 by which the officers grade I (old pattern) promoted as such from officers grade II on or before 31.12.1972 and other officers grade II confirmed as such on or before 31-12-72 were placed in middle management grade scale II. This very Circular contained the decision of the Executive Committee that all officers grade I, who were promoted/confirmed as such on or before 1-10-75 shall be deemed to have been in the middle management grade scale II as from 1.1-1980. This very Circular contained the decision of the Executive Committee that all officers grade I, who were promoted/confirmed as such on or before 1-10-75 shall be deemed to have been in the middle management grade scale II as from 1.1-1980. For the rest of the officers working as officers grade I (old pattern), the non-petitioner Bank issued a Circular dared May, 19, 1981 by which all officers working erst-while officers grate scale I as on 31-12-1978 were treated eligible for promotion test for 125 posts of middle management grade scale 11 on an ad hoc basis and it was notified by the Bank that for the purpose of filling up the said posts, selection would be made by interviews which were held from 10th to 16th June, 1982. Aggrieved by these circulars of the non-petitioner Bank, the petitioners, namely, the State Batik of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers Organisation, R.P. Chabra and Nand Lal Sharma filed their writ petitions on 10-6-1981, 27-5-1981 and 30-5-1981 respectively while Prahlad Rai Khemka submitted the writ petition on 25-3-1983 on the ground of the circulars being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, there is reasonable explanation for the delay and, in my opinion, the petitioners are not ,guilty of lathes or undue delay in seeking relief' under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Now I proceed to deal with the merits of the case. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the provisions contained in Schedule I to the Regulations of 1979 and particularly itmes Nos. 5 and 6 thereof are highly discriminatory, irrational and unreasonable because by virtue of these provisions in the Schedule, officers belonging to cyst-while grade and scale No. 1 have been bifurcated for the purpose of placement inasmuch as all officers who were appointed on or before 31-12-1972 have been placed automatically in middle management grade scale I I and the rest are placed in junior management grade scale. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an arbitrary distinction has been created by the items Nos. 5 and 6 of the Schedule amongst officers belonging to the same erst-while grade scale No. 1, for which there is absolutely no reasonable basis or justification. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an arbitrary distinction has been created by the items Nos. 5 and 6 of the Schedule amongst officers belonging to the same erst-while grade scale No. 1, for which there is absolutely no reasonable basis or justification. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that once the posts of office glade scale No. I (old pattern) have been categorised as posts of middle management grade scale II, all the officers holding the posts of grade scale I on 1-10-1979 ought to have been placed in the Middle Management scale II irrespective of the year or the date of their appointment in the erst-while grade scale No. 1 and it was not open to the non-petitioner Bank to create an artificial group within tile class of officer, belonging to the erst- while grade scale No. I. It was further submitted that even if it is assumed that the classification of time officers grade I promoted ai such from officers grade II on or from 31-12-72 and other officers grade I confirmed as such on or before the aforesaid date has some justification, the resolution of the non-petitioner Bank dated 14-8-80, by which an administrative decision has been taken to further extend the benefit of placement in Middle Management grade scale No. II to other erst- while officers in grade scale No. I who have been promoted/confined on or before 1st October, 1975, is wholly illegal and discriminatory. because the non- petitioner Bank has no power to further classify officers belonging to grade scale No. I by choosing any particular date and because such a decision is contrary to Regulation No. 7 of the Regulations of 1979, which lays down that the placement has to take place on the appointed date. i.e. 1.10.1979 and, therefore, there cannot be a placement after that date, as has been done by the non-petitioner Bank vide its resolution dated 14.8.80. It was further contended that the date, i.e. 1.10.75 choosen by the non-petitioner is absolutely an artificial one and has no reasonable nexus with the placement of officers sought to be achieved. i.e. 1.10.1979 and, therefore, there cannot be a placement after that date, as has been done by the non-petitioner Bank vide its resolution dated 14.8.80. It was further contended that the date, i.e. 1.10.75 choosen by the non-petitioner is absolutely an artificial one and has no reasonable nexus with the placement of officers sought to be achieved. Apart from this, it is further submitted that from a bare perusal of the circulars issued by the non- petitioner Bank on 2.7.1982 and 18.12.82, it is obvious that the number of posts in Middle Management Grade I i as on 1.10.1979, 1.1.1980 and 1.1.1981 and 1.1.1982 was much more than the actual number of officers available in that grade as per the seniority list dated 1.1.1981 and the question of creating artificial group with reference to a particular date. i.e. 1.10.1975 could not have arisen and the erst- while officers in Grade scale No. 1 could not have been treated at par with the officers Grade scale No II for the purposes of categorisation and further promotion. In support of their above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following authorities:- Brij Lal and others v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (1979)WLN (UC) (221) . D.R. Nim v. Union of India ( AIR 1967 SC 1301 ) , Roshan Lal v. Union of India ( AIR 1967 SC 1889 )) . Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1980) (1) S L.R. 230) , M. Gurushanthappa v. Director of Agriculture (1978 Lab. I.C. 150) , and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) . 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the iron-petitioner Bank, on the other hand, is that the petitioners have no right to challenge the validity of the regulations, because they have been enacted by the Bank in order to implement the recommendations of the Pillai Committee and because the petitioners have taken advantage of placement or fixation in the new grades in accordance with the Regulations of 1979. It was further asserted that the non-petitioner Bank is entitled to adopt any policy or to change its existing policy and its discretion in this matter calls for no interference by the High Court. It was further asserted that the non-petitioner Bank is entitled to adopt any policy or to change its existing policy and its discretion in this matter calls for no interference by the High Court. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank, the officers who have been placed in the Middle Management Grade scale II, were senior to the petitioners in the erst-while grade scale No. I and were having much longer services than the petitioners and the dates were fixed having regard to the roughly estimated vacancies that may arise in Middle Management grade scale II as a result of initial categorisation pending completion of' categorisation of various posts at head office and its branches as contemplated by Regulation No. 6 of the Regulations of 1979. In short, the stand taken by the non-petitioner Bank is that the placement of erst while grade I officers in Middle Management scale 11 and in junior Management grade scale I was made after taking into account their seniority and revised estimations of the number of Middle Management cadre posts and there was no arbitrariness in fixing the dates, i.e. 31.12 72 and 1.10.75 in the matter of their placement in the Middle Management grade scale II. In support of their above proposition, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank has placed reliance on two unreported judgments of Karnataka High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court in (7-A) writ petitions Nos. 13338 of 1981 M/S Achytenantha Swamy and others v. State Bank of Mysore and others (decided on 25.8 1982) and in (7-B) writ. petition No 4645 of 1981 U.S Rao and others v. State Bank of Hyderabad and others (decided on 7.12.1982) and certain other rulings. 19. I have carefully perused he authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions mentioned above. petition No 4645 of 1981 U.S Rao and others v. State Bank of Hyderabad and others (decided on 7.12.1982) and certain other rulings. 19. I have carefully perused he authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset, 1 may observe that the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, which were accepted by the Government, have brought about a new structure based on revised grades and scales and accordingly Regulations of 1979 were framed by the Central Board of Directors of the State Bank of India in consultation with the Board of Directors of the non-petitioner Bank rind with the previous approval of the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of the powers conferred by section 63 of the Act of 1959 for implementation of the recommendations of the said Pillai Committee. Under these Regulations the managerial staff of the Bank was reorganised and the officers were placed in new cadres and scales of pay. From a bare perusal of the Regulations of 1979 it is obvious that the General Managers are placed in the top executive grade scale VI and the Assistant General Managers have been placed in Senior Management Grade scale V while officers who were promoted in a grade on or before 31.12.75 have been placed in Senior Management grade scale IV of Rs. 2000-100-2400 and the other officers of a grade, who were promoted after 31.12.75, are placed in Middle Management grade scale III of Rs. 1800-75-2250. Likewise, officers grade I promoted as such from officers grade II on or before 31.12 72 and other officers grade I confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 have been placed in Middle Management grade 11 of Rs. 1200-2000- Other officers of grade 1, who were promoted/confirmed as such after 31.12.72 and officers grade II were placed in Junior Management tirade scale No. 1 of Rs. 700-1800. Thus, the existing officers were placed in the new grades and scales by the non-petitioner Bank after taking into account the required strength of' the new cadres and having regard to the responsibilities and functions exercisable at various levels. I may say that in the process of reorganisation of the cadre, it was necessary to place. 700-1800. Thus, the existing officers were placed in the new grades and scales by the non-petitioner Bank after taking into account the required strength of' the new cadres and having regard to the responsibilities and functions exercisable at various levels. I may say that in the process of reorganisation of the cadre, it was necessary to place. the officers, who were in different cadres, in the new grade scales and this was done after having regard to the interse-seniority of the existing officers and the number of posts required to be filled in in the respective cadres. The contention of the petitioners that placement in the Middle Management grade scale II of officers in the erst-while grade I, who were promoted/confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 and in junior Management grade scale I of the rest of the officers grade I, who were promoted or confirmed as such subsequent to 31.12.72 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not well-founded for the reasons that the new grades and scales created under the Regulations of 1979 are not equivalent to the old grades and scales and the non- petitioner Bank is empowered by virtue of section 50 of the Act of 1959 to appoint such number of officers, advisers and employees as it considers necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of the functions and on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit, subject, however, to such limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. It appears to me that in the process of' placement of erst- while officers grade I in the new Middle Management grade scale II and Junior Middle Management grade scale I the cardinal principle of inter-se seniority has been strictly maintained. Apart from this, the placement appears to have been made by the non-petitioner Batik after approximately assessing the number of posts required in Middle Management grade scale II. The device adopted by the non- petitioner Bank that the officers grade I promoted as such from officers grade II on or before 31.12 72 and other officers confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 should be placed into Middle Management grade scale II of Rs. 1200-2000 and the other officers grade I who were appointed or confirmed as such after 31.12.72 should be fitted in,Junior Management grade scale I of Rs. 1200-2000 and the other officers grade I who were appointed or confirmed as such after 31.12.72 should be fitted in,Junior Management grade scale I of Rs. 700-1800 cannot be safely held to he discriminatory or arbitrary, because, without any discrimination all the senior officers grade 1, who have been promoted or confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 have been placed in Middle Management grade scale. The non-petitioner Bank could very well specific the number of posts in 'Middle Management grade scale II and could make initial appointment or fitment into these posts of officers in the erst-while grade I strictly in accordance with the cardinal principle of seniority. If the Bank had done so, there could have been no discrimination amongst the officers of grade 1, If instead of doing so the non- petitioner Bank decided to place officers grade I promoted or confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 in Middle Management grade scale No II and to fit other officers grade I, who were appointed and confirmed after 31.12.72, in junior Middle Management grade scale 1, such a decision, in my opinion, is neither discriminatory, nor violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 20. Another grievance of the petitioners appears to be that prior to coming into force of the Regulations of 1979 they were holding posts of the same grade I in the pay scale 500-1330 and were doing the same kind of work but officers grade I, who were promoted or confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 were given more benefits by the non-petitioner Bank by placing them in Middle Management grade scale II of Rs. 1200-2000 and officers grade I including the petitioners, who were promoted as such after 31.12.72. were discriminated and fitted with officers grade II in junior Management grade scale I of Rs. 700-1800. In this manner, according to the petitioners, equals were treated unequally and were clubbed together with the unequals, i. e. officers grade 11 in Junior Management grade No. 1. The grievance of the petitioners, in my opinion, is an imaginary one. All that has been done by the non-petitioners Bank is that consequent upon the reorgainisation of the stall pattern according to the recommendations made by the Pillai Committee, two cadres namely. Middle Management grade scale of its. 1200-2000 and junior Management grade scale of Rs. The grievance of the petitioners, in my opinion, is an imaginary one. All that has been done by the non-petitioners Bank is that consequent upon the reorgainisation of the stall pattern according to the recommendations made by the Pillai Committee, two cadres namely. Middle Management grade scale of its. 1200-2000 and junior Management grade scale of Rs. 700-1800 have been created immediately below the cadre of Middle Management grade scale III of Rs. 1800-2250 and officers grade I promoted or confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 were placed in Middle Management grade scale II of Its. 1200-2000 and other officers of grade I, who were promoted or confirmed as such on or after 31-12 1972 along with officers grade II were fitted in ,junior Management grade scale 1 of Its. 700-1800. It has been held in Kishori Mohanlal v. Union of India ( AIR 1962 SC 1139 ) , that the creation of different grades in the Government service is not forbidden by Article 16 of the Constitution and that Article 14 has nothing to do with the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Hence, the contention from the side of the petitioners including Prahlad Rai Khemka that Article 16 has been violated because the other officers grade I, who were promoted or confirmed as such after 31. 12.1972 are not eligible for promotion to Middle. Management grade scale III is not sound. for the simple. reason that no question of denial of equality of opportunity does arise in such a case when the creation of different grades is not forbidden by Article 16 of the Constitution. Reference in this connection may be made to A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 1545 ) , wherein their Lordships clearly observed that the Union of India is competent to change or rechange or adjust or readjust a policy once adopted with regard to promotion of an employee in a cadre of Defence Forces provided there are good and weighty reasons for such a change. Their Lordships further held that it is within the competence of the Union of India either to stick to its earlier policy or to give a complete go-bye to it but in a case it changes its policy, it must do so in a fair manner without giving the impression that it has been changed arbitrarily or on account of any ulterior criterion. Further the changed policy should be made known to those concerned. The following observations of their Lordships are quoted below in extenso : "In this view, we agree with the submission of the Union of India that there is no bar to its changing the policy formulated in 1964 if there are good and weighty reasons for doing so. We are far from suggesting that a new policy should be made merely because of the lapse of tittle, nor are we inclined to suggest the manner in which such a policy should be shaped. It is entirely within the reasonable discretion of the Union of India. It may stick to the earlier policy or give it up. But one imperative of the Constitution implict in Article 14 is that if it does change its policy, it must do so fairly and should not give the impression that it is acting by any ulterior criteria or arbitrarily..." In the present case, in framing the Regulations of 1979, recommendations made by the Pillai Committee were accepted. The Pillai Committee after studying pre-existing position regarding staff pattern in the ministerial cadres, recommended reorganisation of cadres and the pay scales thereof. The relevant recommendations are quoted below: "5 4 Our discussions with experienced banks, and the National Institute of Bank Management have reinforced this conclusion. These levels are as follows: (a) Top Management;'or executive level. This is the policy making level for the institution as a whole. There would be to led corporate responsibility at this level for policy making review and control; (b) Senior Management level. At this level there would be total responsibility for an entire functional area in the Bank, e. g. advances or personal as also for a geographical area covering all functions, e. g. officers in charge of zones: (c) Middle Management Level. Managers of bigger offices and officers giving key support to the top or senior management would be in this level. Managers of bigger offices and officers giving key support to the top or senior management would be in this level. This would be a tier for ensuring smooth career progression from an operational job to semi policy making areas; (d) Junior Management level. The bulk of the operational tasks of a supervisory nature would devolve on officers at this level. It would also comprise managers of smaller offices. accountants or second line officers in branches and other offices of this Bank. As this includes officers newly inducted, the large majority of officers in the nationalised banks are working at this level." The report containing these and other recommendations was made by the Committee after having detailed enquiries collecting necessary dates and meeting several representatives, bankers as well as employees. While making the report the Committee took into account the pay structure and conditions of services existing in each of the nationalised Banks and recommended that the structure of pay scales has to be fashioned keeping in view the individual needs and the needs of the organisation. Hence, the officers grade I including the petitioners who have been promoted as such after 31.12.72 cannot complain that they have been subjected to discrimination, especially when the placement and fitment of officers grade I into Middle Management Grade scale II and Junior Management grade scale I was done strictly according to the seniority and after approximately assessing the required number of officer's for Middle Management grade scale II. The mere fact that officers grade I promoted or confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 received more benefits in this process is not sufficient for the petitioners to contend that equals were t1 sated unequaly and equals with unequals and their chances for promotion were also jeopardised. It appears that after the Pillai Committee Report was implemented and the service Regulations of 1979 were framed, officers including the petitioners were called upon to communicate their choice of accepting the fitments into the new grades and pay scales or to give their option to continue in the erst-while grades and scales of pay. The officers including the petitioners generally accepted the new Regulations and their placements and fitments and drew salary on the basis of the fitments. The officers including the petitioners generally accepted the new Regulations and their placements and fitments and drew salary on the basis of the fitments. In these circumstances, the classification of posts and placement of existing officers including the petitioners in the new grades on reasonable basis namely on the basis of seniority and having regard to the responsibilities and functions exercisable, cannot be said to be violative of the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the officers grade I promoted as such from officers grade II on or before 31.12.72 and other officers of grade I confirmed as such on or before the, aforesaid date were fitted in the Middle Management grade II, a further circular was issued by the non-petitioner Bank on 14.8.1980 where it was mentioned that the Executive Committee has decided that all officers grade 1, who were promoted or confirmed as such on or before 1st October, 1975 shall be deemed to have been placed in the Middle Management grade II as from 1.1.1980. By virtue of this circular, the crucial date i.e. 31.12.1972 was further extended to 1.10.1975 and the officers grade I, who were working as such upto 1.10 1975 were also placed in the Middle Management grade II. Thereafter, the non-petitioner Bank issued another circular on 19.5.1981 whereby the earlier policy regarding automatic placement of officers grade I in the Middle Management grade II was given up and a new mode was adopted for ad-hoc promotion to fill up the vacancies in the Middle Management grade II. The criterion now adopted is that the officers working in the erst-while grade I as on 31. 12.1972 will he considered for ad-hoc promotion to the Middle Management grade II after being selected by interview. In this manner, the circular dated 19-5-1981 issued by the non petitioner Bank changed the pattern and put a rider that for promotion to the Middle Management grade II, officers in the Junior Management grade I will have to appear before the selection board for interview and will he promoted only when they are selected by the selection board. In this manner, the circular dated 19-5-1981 issued by the non petitioner Bank changed the pattern and put a rider that for promotion to the Middle Management grade II, officers in the Junior Management grade I will have to appear before the selection board for interview and will he promoted only when they are selected by the selection board. In this manner, the officers grade I, who were promoted or confirmed as such on or before 1st October, 1975 were treated differently from the officers grade I who were promoted or confirmed as such after 1.10.1975 for promotion to Middle Management grade II. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were expecting that as officers grade I, who have been fitted automatically in Middle Management grade II by the non-petitioner Bank, they will also be treated in the same way and will be fined in the Middle Management grade II as a matter of course, but a new criterion was introduced by the non-petitioners Bank on 19.5.1981 and instead of treating the petitioners equally subjected them to a discrimination by asking them to appear before the selection board for interview even fret ad hoc promotion where- as such criterion was not adopted for the officers grade I promoted or confirmed as such upto 1.10.1975 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in short is that all the officers working in the erst-while grade I upto 1.10.1979 must be treated as one class and the non-petitioner Bank created Classification within classification to discriminate officers of the same class. The petitioners submitted representations to the non-petitioner Bank protesting against the introduction of this new procedure but their representations did not find favour with the non-petitioner Bank. 22. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank repudiated the above contention by arguing that the dates fixed for placement of officers grade I in the Middle Management grade II have not been arbitrarily chosen by the Bank for drawing the line of distinction between the persons belonging to one class. 22. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank repudiated the above contention by arguing that the dates fixed for placement of officers grade I in the Middle Management grade II have not been arbitrarily chosen by the Bank for drawing the line of distinction between the persons belonging to one class. The classification which has been made by the Bank is not artificial, because the dates were fixed having due regard to the roughlyest mated vacancies that may arise in the Middle Management grade scale II as a result of initial categorisation pending completion of categorisation of various posts at head office and it: branches as envisaged in Regulation No. 6 of the Regulations of 1979. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Batik that the officers grade I, who were placed in Middle Management grade II were senior to the petitioners in the erst-while grade I and were having much longer service than the petitioners. It was open to the management of the non-petitioner Bank to lay down criterion of promotion and the procedure for promotion from lower grade scale to higher grade scale from time to time and the petitioners have no vested right in implementation of a particular promotion policy for all the times. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank, the procedure for promotion and the criterion for eligibility can be changed in the normal course of the administration of the management having due regard to the number of vacancies and the number of eligible candidates available for a particular cadre of promotion. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank further urged that the officers grade I were placed in Middle Management grade scale II by the non-petitioner Bank after taking into consideration the revised estimation of the number of the Middle Management cadre posts and it was thus a case of placement under Regulation No. 7 of the Regulations of 1979 which was effected on 1.4.1980 and in July-. 1980 after having due regard to the estimated number of Middle Management scale posts. Such a placement under the new scales cannot be equated to promotion of one scale to another. 23. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions mentioned above. 1980 after having due regard to the estimated number of Middle Management scale posts. Such a placement under the new scales cannot be equated to promotion of one scale to another. 23. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions mentioned above. I have already held that the decision of the non-petitioner Bank to place officers grade I promoted or confirmed as such on or before 31.12.72 in Middle Management grade scale II and to place other officers grade I, who were appointed or confirmed after 31.12.1972 in junior Management grade scale I is neither discriminatory, nor violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 24. The next. question that arises for consideration is whether the circular issued by the non-petitioner Bank on 14 8.1980 that all officers grade I who were promoted or confirmed as such after 31.12.1972 and on or before 1.10.1975 shall be deemed to have been fitted in the Middle Management grade II as from 1.1.1980 gives more favourable treatment to officers grade I who were clubbed together with officers grade II and placed in Junior Management grade scale I. Before dealing with this question I may observe that classification of officers of Bank into different new grades and scales of pay is not precluded by the principle of equality laid down by Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution so long as no differentiation is made between personnel belonging to the same class. In the instant case when officers grade I promoted or confirmed as such on of before 31.12.1972 were placed in Middle Management grade scale II and other officers grade I and officers grade II were clubbed together and placed in Junior Management grade scale I, the non-petitioner Bank was not entitled to make differentiation as between officers or personnel belonging to the same class of junior Management grade scale I. What has been done by the eon-petitioner Bank by issuing the impugned circulars dated 14. 8. 1980 and 19. 5. 1981 is that some of the officers grade I (who were promoted or confirmed as such after 31. 12. 1972 and who were already clubbed with officers grade II and placed in junior Management grade scale 1) got a chance of being promoted or placed automatically in Middle Management grade scale 11 without any selection test while other officers in the erst while scale I as on 31. 12. 12. 1972 and who were already clubbed with officers grade II and placed in junior Management grade scale 1) got a chance of being promoted or placed automatically in Middle Management grade scale 11 without any selection test while other officers in the erst while scale I as on 31. 12. 78 were required to face the interview for promotion to Middle Management grade scale II on ad-hoc basis. As between officers grade scale I who were promoted or confirmed as such after 31-12-72 and placed in junior Management grade scale I along with officers grade 11, there can be no discrimination in matters relating to promotion to the higher Middle Management grade scale II, because once they having been included into a single grade or unit of employment (i. e. Junior Management grade scale 1) it is not permissible for the non-petitioner Bank to provide a differential treatment between personnel of the same grade. Subsequent differentiation amongst the officers of the same grade or unit on the basis of their being promoted or confirmed as such on or before a particular date, i.e. 1.10.1975 in the matter of promotion to the higher grade violates Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. The action of the non petitioner Bank, no doubt, would have been justified if the same criterion of interview was laid down for all the personnel or officers belonging to Junior Management grade scale I to the higher grade i.e. Middle Management grade scale 11. In my opinion, it is not open for the non-petitioner Bank to say that sortie of' the officers belonging to junior Management grade scale I shall be deemed to have been automatically placed in or promoted to the higher Middle Management grade scale II if they were promoted or confirmed as officers grade I after 31.12.1972 and on or before 1-10-1975. and the rest of the officers in the erst-while officers grade I as on 31-12-73 would be considered for such promotion subject to their being found suitable in the interview for the purpose. Consequently. I have no hesitation in holding that the circulars dated 14.8.1980 and 19. 5.1981 issued by the non-petitioner Bank are liable to be quashed on the ground of being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 25. Consequently. I have no hesitation in holding that the circulars dated 14.8.1980 and 19. 5.1981 issued by the non-petitioner Bank are liable to be quashed on the ground of being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 25. The result of the above discussion is that all the four writ petitions mentioned above are partly accepted and the circulars of the non-petitioner Bank dated 14 8.1980 and 19.5.1981 are quashed on the ground of being discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners are not entitled to get other reliefs which are claimed by them in their writ petitions and to that extent the writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall beat their own costs. A copy of this order be placed in each of the connected files. *******