JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is against the judgment dated February 5, 1981 by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition of S.K. Sen Gupta claiming seniority over certain respondents and the consequential reliefs including the quashing of circular Ex. 1-B dated October 12, 1978 issued by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur laying down the eligibility criteria for promotion of Officers Grade-I to 'A' Grade. 2. The petitioner is a direct recruit, who was appointed was Probationary Officer initially in Grade 'C later re-designated as Grade-I in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by order dated January 21, 1971. He joined the service on April 5, 1971 and was confirmed on April 5, 1973 as an Officer in Grade-I. Subsequent to the petitioner's appointment to a substantive post in Grade I, respondents Nos. 3 to 17 in the writ petition who were junior officers in the Bank were promoted as Officers Grade I on July 15, 1972 and they were also confirmed from the same date i.e. July 15, 1972. In this manner respondents Nos. 3 to 17 were promotees and had been promoted as officers Grade-I after the petitioner had been appointed to a substantive post in the same grade on April 5, 1971, were made senior to the petitioner as Officers Grade-I by giving them an earlier date of confirmation. Subsequently promotions to the vacancies in the higher Grade 'A' of the year 1977 were made in 1978 on the basis of eligib lity criteria laid down in Ex.1-B dated October 12, 1978 and some of these promotees being treated as senior to the petitioner were promoted, while the petitioner was not so promoted. It is significant that three such promotees, S.K. Agosia, R.L. Sardana and O N. Kapoor who were respondents Nos. 11, 14 and 15 respectively were promoted by waiving one of the conditions of eligibility laid down in Ex. 1-B. 3. The petitioner' grievance is that in the seniority list published in 1978 the petitioner has been wrongly shown as junior to these promotees who were promoted to Grade-I after his appointment against the substantive post in that cadre and failure to consider him for promotion while giving promotion to such promotees treating them as senior is invalid. It is also urged that the elisibility conditions prescribed in circular Ex. It is also urged that the elisibility conditions prescribed in circular Ex. 1-B are discriminatory and even otherwise the Bank has made a hostile discrimination against the petitioner in application there of. 4. The case of the Bank is that the promotees were treated as senior to the direct recruits because of their long service in the lower ranks in the Bank and it is for this reason that they were confirmed from the very date of their promotion. Fixation of seniority on the basis of date of confirmation is Justified on this basis. It is also urged that the service conditions can be altered unilaterally, since the matter is of status and there is reasonable classification of the promotees and direct recruits treating longer experience in lower post as valid basis for classification. The showing of petitioner as senior to these promotees in 1977 in the list of officers Grade I was a mere mistake which was corrected later in 1978. Reliance was also placed on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 which came into force in 1979 to contend that in accordance there with the prosince the promotees fall in item No. 5 of Schedule. I, while the petitioner came under item No, 6 of Schedule. I to the Regulations read with Regulation these Regulations which placed higher these promotees who had been confirmed with effect from the date of their promotion on July 15, 1972. Reliance was also placed on the direction contained in letters Ex. D. 7 dated April 1, 1965, Ex. D. 9 dated April 28, 1965 issued by the State Bank of India treating them as directions given under Section 24 of the State Bank of India State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to passrd on July 26, 1976 Ex. D. 11 was also referred in this connection to urge that the inter seniority of the direct recruits and promotees had been fixed according to the directions of the State Bank of India which were to this effect of placing promotees over direct recruits which was unavoidable after the Regulations came into force in 1979. A preliminary oblection to the maintainability of the writ petition was also taken 5. The learned Single Judge has accepted the petitioner's contentions as indicated earlier. Hence this appeal by the Bank. 6. A preliminary oblection to the maintainability of the writ petition was also taken 5. The learned Single Judge has accepted the petitioner's contentions as indicated earlier. Hence this appeal by the Bank. 6. The rival contentions in the writ petition reproduced above have been reiterated. 7. We shall consider first the preliminary objection by the learned Counsel for appellant Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is available. In our opinion, this contention was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the writ petition is by an employee of the Bank which is a statutory body. It is settled that a writ can be issued to it, since it falls within the meaning of the word 'Stare' used in Article 12 of the Constitution. The petition is by the Bank's employee alleging in substance violation of his right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is too well settled by now that in a case like this where the grievance substantially is of contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by a statutory authority to which a writ can be issued in exercise of powers unser Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petition cannot be treated as not maintainable. It is unnecessary to burden our decision with authorities on this point which are well known. 8. The first real question on merits is the validity of the classification made by the Bank for the purpose of confirming the promotees as Officers Grade-I with effect from the date of their promotion to that rank, while giving confirmation to the direct recruit on expiry of the period of two years of their service in that post on probation when date of confirmation is the criteria for determining their inter se seniority. There is no dispute that the date of confirmation on the post can be a valid basis for determination of seniority in the cadre. The further question, however a promotee can be given the same date of confirmation on which he was promoted and a direct recruit after two years of his appointment, when the date of confirmation is the determining factor of their inter se seniority in that cadre. The further question, however a promotee can be given the same date of confirmation on which he was promoted and a direct recruit after two years of his appointment, when the date of confirmation is the determining factor of their inter se seniority in that cadre. In our opinion, there can be no doubt that seniority being based on confirmation on a post in the cadre, the same principle should be applied to promotees as well as the direct recruits for giving them a date of confirmation. Prescribing different periods of experience of working in a post in that cadre for direct recruits and promotees while giving them confirmation would be per se discriminatory. When a direct recruit is appointed against a substantive post, which is admittedly the petitioner's case, then the promotees who is appointed to a post in the same cadre after him cannot be made senior to such a direct recruit by prescribing no period of working on a post in the cadre as necessary for confirmation of such a promotee while prescribing a minimum of two years for confirming a direct recruit. The experience of a promotee of working in the lower post has no relevance for confirming him on the higher post from the date of his induction into it, even though it may be reasonable basis of providing it as a channel for recruitment to the higher post. It is difficult to appreciate that a promotee can justifiably be confirmed from the date of his promotion as Officer Grade-I when a direct recruit appointed to a substantive vacancy in the same cadre before him cannot be confirmed before expiry of two years from the date of his appointment. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the decisions in Lila Kanta Barua and Ors. v. Collector of Custom and Central Excise, Shillong and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 444 , S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 19367 SC 1427 , Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1889 , The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosla and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1 and R. Sadasivan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1987 Lab. AIR 19367 SC 1427 , Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1889 , The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosla and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1 and R. Sadasivan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1987 Lab. I.C. 1143 Ker in support of his contention that confirmation of the promotees could be validly made from the very date of their promotion while direct recruits appointed before them against substantive posts in the same cadre could justifiably be confirmed after these promotees. The principles laid down in these cases are not in dispute but they have no application in the present case where the hostile discrimination is so obvious for the reasons already indicated. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant is right in contending that there was a mistake in the Officers' list published in 1977 showing the petitioner as senior to these respondents and what was done in 1978 was to correct that mistake. It does appear that the list issued in 1977 was not a seniority list, but merely a list of the officers without determining their inter se seniority. Even otherwise according to the principles adopted by the Bank there was a mistake in the earlier list, the same could be corrected there after without any notice or hearing being given. However, that is immaterial on account of the view we have taken to answer the other basic questions. 11. We may now consider the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant based on the Service Regulations of 1979. Regulation 7 provides that existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in column 1 of the table given in Schedule-I shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grade and scale specified there against in column 2 of the said Schedule The proviso indicates that difficulties or anomalies arising out of this placement shall be referred to a Committee appointed for this purpose whose decision shall be final. In Schedule I, item No. 5 relates to officers Grade I promoted as such on or before December 31, 1972 and other officers Grade-I confirmed as such on or before December 31, 1972. These officers are redesignated as the Middle Management Grade Scale-II. In Schedule I, item No. 5 relates to officers Grade I promoted as such on or before December 31, 1972 and other officers Grade-I confirmed as such on or before December 31, 1972. These officers are redesignated as the Middle Management Grade Scale-II. Item No. 6 relates to the existing other Officers Grade-1 and Officers Grade-II who are redesignated as Junior Management Grade Scale I. It is urged that the promotees in the present case were promoted and confirmed on July 15, 1972 while the petitioner though appointed to a substantive post on probation in Grade-I on April 5, 1971, was confirmed on April 5, 1973 on expiry of the probationary period. Accoidingly these promotees being promoted and confirmed prior to December 31, 1972 fall in the higher category in item No. 5. while the petitioner could not come in that category being confirmed after December 31, 1972. The petitioner, therefore, fell in the lower category in item No. 6. The argument is that the statutory Regulations saying so have to be obeyed by the Bank and, therefore, nothing can be done to avoid the consequence of the petitioner becoming junior to the promotees who were promoted as Officers Grade-I on July 15, 1972 more than a year after the petitioner had been directly recruited in that cadre. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention and the Regulation does not present any such difficulty. Regulation 7 is as under: "7. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in the column 1 of the table given in Schedule-I to these regulations shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grade and scale specified these against in column 2 of the said schedule. Provided that any difficulties or anomalies arising out of the above placement shall be referred of a Committee of such persons as the Board of the Executive Committee may appoint and the decision of that Committee in this regard shall be final. Provided that any difficulties or anomalies arising out of the above placement shall be referred of a Committee of such persons as the Board of the Executive Committee may appoint and the decision of that Committee in this regard shall be final. In the first place the proviso the Regulation 7 itself provides for the solving of any difficulty or removal of any anomaly resulting from the placement according to Schedule-I. Accordingly, the anomaly resulting from the treating as senior the promotees who were appointed Officers Grade-I more than a year after the petitioner came in that cadre has to be sorted out according to this proviso and this can be easily done by giving the promotees a date of confirmation after December 31, 1972, in case direct recruits appointed before the promotees came in the cadre cannot be given a date of confirmation prior to these promotees. That is, however, a matter for the Bank itself to sort cut, because this anomaly is its own creation. We have already indicated that different periods of experience of working in a post in the same cadre cannot be validly prescribed for the direct recruits and promotees for confirming them to a post in the same cadre when the date of confirmation is the criterion for determining their inter-se seniority in that cadre. More over if any difficulty in the working of these Regulations is visualised by the Bank it is for the Bank to take necessary steps even for their amendment so as to bring them in confirmity with the existing situation and to avoid any injustice This argument of helplessness advanced on behalf of the Bank does not impress us and we are unable to accept the same. We may further observe that if the Bank be right in contending that this is the inevitable consequence of this regulation, the extent to which they are an obstruction in the way of the Bank treating its employees equally, the same would be rendered invalid being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. We would now consider the arguments relating to promotion to Grade 'A' according to the criteria laid down in the circular Ex.1-B dated 12th October, 1978 issued by the Bank. Relevant portion of the circular is as under: "2. 12. We would now consider the arguments relating to promotion to Grade 'A' according to the criteria laid down in the circular Ex.1-B dated 12th October, 1978 issued by the Bank. Relevant portion of the circular is as under: "2. The Board of Directors at their meeting held on the 14th August, 1978 have approved the following modifications in the existing eligibility criteria for promotion from Officers' Grade-I to 'A' Grade. Subject to successful completion of independent line assignment for a minimum period of two years: (i) All Officers Grade-I who have entered that grade directly and completed seven years' confirmed service as on 1st January each year and have completed both pans of CAIIB examination (otherwise twelve years' confirmed service as Officers Grade-I) (ii) All Officers Grade-I who got promoted to that grade from Officers' Grade-II cadre and completed five yrars' service and have passed both parts of CAIIB examination (otherwise ten years' service as Officers Grade.I), and (iii) All Officers Grade-I in the first channel who are senior to any of the eligible officer in the second channel. The stipulation regarding CAIIB Examination, which was waived for a period of two years, is enforceable in the current years' promotion, but as the current year's CAIIB Examination, have been postponed, this stipulation may be waived for the ensuing promotions this year. In the promotions from next year onwards, this stipulation as also the one relating to completion of two years' independent line assignment, which too has not been followed so far, would be strictly enforced as provided for in the existing promotion policy." The petitioner's argument in respect of this circular is two fold. It is contended that there is hostile discrimination against direct recruits by prescribing different periods of service for the promotees and direct recruits as a condition of eligibility for promotion. It is also argued that even according to this criteria the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that he had not passed the prescribed examination while some promotees who also had not passed that examination were promoted waiving that condition of eligibility in their case. In our opinion both these contentions are well founded. 13. It is also argued that even according to this criteria the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that he had not passed the prescribed examination while some promotees who also had not passed that examination were promoted waiving that condition of eligibility in their case. In our opinion both these contentions are well founded. 13. A bare perusal of the above extract shows that while a direct recruit is not eligible to be considered for promotion till completion of seven years confirmed service as an Officer Grade-I, a promotee is eligible on completion of a mere five years' service as Officer Grade-I. In other words, a direct recruit has to complete seven years from the date of confirmation as Officer Grade-I in addition to the two years' period of probation i.e. he is required to work as Officer Grade I for in all nine years from the date of his initial appointment as Officer Grade-I for being eligible for promotion to Grade 'A'-On the other hand, a promotee Officer Grade-I is confirmed from the veiy date of his promotion and he is required to serve as Officer Grade-I for only five years to be eligible for promotion as Grade 'A'. This requirement of the direct recruit serving as Officer Grade-I for an additional period of four years as compared to the promotee even though both of them belong to the same cadre in which they are merged after being drawn from different sources is an obvious unequal treatment and hostile discrimination practiced against the direct recruits. Learned Counsel for the appellant streneously urged that the Court cannot prescribe the conditions of eligibility and, therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the same period of five years' service as Officer Grade-I should be prescribed for the direct recruits. No doubt the conditions of eligibility are to be laid down by the Bank and it is a policy matter in which the Court will not interfere except to the extent any invalidity is attached to the eligibility criteria finally prescribed. No doubt the conditions of eligibility are to be laid down by the Bank and it is a policy matter in which the Court will not interfere except to the extent any invalidity is attached to the eligibility criteria finally prescribed. It is open to the Bank to prescribe the eligibility criteria, but in doing so It cannot prescribe different conditions of eligibility for the direct recruits and promotecs belonging to the same cadre in which they have merged after being drawn from different sources for the purpose of being considered for promotion to a higher grade. The extent to which any additional requirement is prescribed for any of the two and in the present case for the direct recruits, the same is invalid as con ravening Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the additional requ rement prescribed for the direct recruits in Ex. 1-B as compared to the promotees regarding length of service as Officer Grade-I is invalid as violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. In this connection we would also like to observe that the condition of working in an independent line assignment for a minimum period of two years equally applicable to the promotees and direct recruits must be understood to mean that the officers have completed independent line assignment for a minimum period of 2 years provided they were given such opportunity by the Bank. In other words, if the failure of an officer to satisfy this condition is on account of the Bank's failure to offer such an assignment to the officer, then the officer cannot be treated as ineligible, whereas if the officer does not avail of that opportunity inspite of the offer being given by the Bank then he cannot complain against ineligibility for this reason. 15. The stipulation rega ding passing the CAIIB examination specified in this circular was obviously not strictly adhered to and this condition was waived from time to time. 15. The stipulation rega ding passing the CAIIB examination specified in this circular was obviously not strictly adhered to and this condition was waived from time to time. It is sufficient for us to say that it is for the Bank to decide whether to waive this condition or not, but in exercise of the discretion it must treat equally officers who are similarly placed and it cannot waive the condition in respect of some and not the others three respondents namely, S K. Agosia, R.L. Sardana and O.N. Kapoor who were promotees to Grade-I were given the promotion to Grade 'A' even though they did not satisfy this condition and it was waived for them. At the same time the petitioner was treated unequally by not being considered for this reason alone. In our opinion, this was clear discrimination made by the Bank which cannot be sustained and for this reason rightly no attempt was made on behalf of the Bank to support it. 16. We may also add that according to the above criteria laid down in Ex.1 B, all Officers Grade-I who are direct recruits and are senior to any of the eligible promotee officer had also to be considered for promotion. From the view we have taken on the question or inter-se seniority of the direct recruits vis-a-vis the promotees it follows that all direct recruits who are senior to the eligible promotec officers have to be considered for promotion to Grade 'A' under the residuary clause contained in Para 2 (iii) of the circular Ex. 1-B. We may, however, add that what we have said about the direct recruits applies to these direct recruits who are found fit for confirmation on successful completion of the period of probation and whose initial appointment was made prior to the promotee officers over whom they claim seniority against a sustentive post in the cadre. 17. Fixing of the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Officers Grade-I has, therefoie, to be made on the above principles and the eligibility criteria for promotion of Grade-I Officers to Grade 'A' in accordance with the circular Ex. 1-B dated October 12, 1978 has also to be made in the manner indicated above. 17. Fixing of the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Officers Grade-I has, therefoie, to be made on the above principles and the eligibility criteria for promotion of Grade-I Officers to Grade 'A' in accordance with the circular Ex. 1-B dated October 12, 1978 has also to be made in the manner indicated above. The promotions made contrary to the principles indicated by us have to be reviewed and all eligible direct recruits have to be considered for promotion from the date on which they were eligible. The date of confirmation of the direct recruits and promo tees as Officers Grade-I has also to be re-fixed accordingly and their seniority determined on that basis. The petitioner and all other officers similarly placed have to be given the consequential benefits accordingly without driving other similar officers to this Court for obtaining the same relief by filing further writ petitions. 18. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed in the manner indicated. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******