JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The 1st petitioner K. Lakshminarayan joined the 1st respondent, Dena Bank, in the year 1961 as a clerk. The 2nd petitioner, Harshvardhan B. Vyas joined the same bank in the year 1964 also as a clerk. Both of them were promoted in Scale 1 of the Junior Management Grade effective from July 1, 1979 along with respondents 2 to 13. The first seniority list was published by the 1st respondent Bank in February 1981. In the said list the position of both the petitioners was correctly shown. Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 and petitioner No. 2 were shown as juniors to petitioner No. 1 and respondents 10 to 13 were shown as juniors to petitioner No. 2. The next seniority list was published in January 1985 which showed respondents 2 to 13 very much higher than the petitioners in the Scale II of the Middle Management Grade although respondents 2 to 13 were juniors to petitioners 1 and 2 and by this seniority list they were treated as senior. The petitioners, therefore, wrote a letter dated June 24, 1986 to the 1st respondent Bank making enquiries as to the basis and criteria on which promotions were given to respondents 2 to 13. They were orally informed that respondents 2 to 13 were promoted earlier than they by a resolution of the board of directors of the 1st respondent Bank passed in a meeting held on January 19, 1980, as they (respondents 2 to 13) were chartered accountants. The petitioners have challenged this action on the part of the 1st respondent Bank in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. In support of the petition Mr. Chopra submitted that shifting respondents 2 to 13 from Scale 1 of the Junior Management Grade to Scale II of the Middle Management Grade amounts to promotion of the said respondents which was in violation of the Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the said regulations") ignoring the claims of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners who were promoted afterwards be granted deemed promotion from the date on which the respondents 2 to 13 were promoted. In reply Mr. In reply Mr. Talsania, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Bank canvassed that respondents 2 to 13 were not promoted as alleged by the petitioners but they were properly classified and put in a proper grade because they were chartered accountants and no injustice was done to the petitioners Mr. Talsania also urged that the writ petition suffers from laches and delay of about six years and on that ground also no relief can now be given to the petitioners. 3. We shall first deal with the argument of Mr. Talsania that the petitioners should not be granted any relief in this writ petition because it was filed six years after the cause of action, if at all, accrued in favour of the petitioners. The submission of the learned Counsel is that respondents 2 to 13 admittedly according to the petitioners were promoted in accordance with the Board's resolution of January 1980 whereas the petition was filed in August 1986 and therefore the delay of six years could not be condoned and no relief be granted to the petitioners. In the alternative Mr. Talsania canvassed that at any rate the petitioners admittedly came to know about the concerned seniority list in the month of January 1985 from when also writ petition is filed after a delay of about 18 to 19 months which should not be condoned. In support of this argument Mr. Talsania relied upon a Supreme Court Judgement in the case of (P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu)1, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2271. 4. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with this submission of Mr. Talsania because the petitioners made clear averments in para 8 of the petition that the seniority list on December 31, 1982 was published in the form of a printed booklet and received by the petitioners in January 1985 and further seniority list of the officers as on December 31, 1984 was published and received by the petitioners sometimes in November 1985 and in view of the fact that the first promotion had taken place as per the rules, guideline and policy sometime in June 1982, the petitioners only checked whether their names were in seniority list in the proper grade. It was also contended by the petitioner that the said list contained a large number of pages and it was difficult for the petitioners to check the names of each and every person as compared to the position of petitioners and they had no reason to believe that there were any suppression. According to them, in the middle of the first half of the year 1986 they noticed that some persons at the main office were considered senior to them though they were in fact junior as per the list as of June 30, 1979 and therefore they went through the seniority list and found that respondents 4 to 13 were wrongly shown as seniors to petitioner No. 1 and respondents 10 to 13 were wrongly shown as seniors to petitioner No. 2. The petitioners thereafter addressed two letters dated June 12, 1986 and June 24, 1986 to the Chairman of the 1st respondent Bank putting this fact on record and making enquiry as to why the said respondents came to be promoted and some of them over their heads. However, no reply was received and therefore a reminder was sent but without result and thereafter in or about the second week of July 1986, they were unofficially called and informed by one Namboodri, an officer in the Personnel Department of the 1st respondent that there had been no amendment to the said Regulations but promotions of respondents 2 to 13 were made pursuant to the Memorandum put up by management of the Bank and a resolution passed by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on January 19, 1980. The petitioners also came to know that there was no sanction of the Central Government to such promotions and that respondents 2 to 13 were promoted because they were Cost/Chartered Accountants. This oral information which the petitioners got was put on record by them vide their letter dated July 15, 1986 questioning the powers of the Board to pass such a resolution in the contravention of the said Regulations. These avernments made by the petitioners in their petition were dealt with by Mr. G.R. Novrekar on behalf of the respondent Bank in his Affidavit dated February 9, 1988. 5. These avernments made by the petitioners in their petition were dealt with by Mr. G.R. Novrekar on behalf of the respondent Bank in his Affidavit dated February 9, 1988. 5. It is the case of the 1st respondent Bank that the seniority list was published in a printed booklet as far as in December 1982 and they were freely available to all employees of the Bank and it was totally inconceivable that the petitioners received the information only in the month of January 1985. The Bank also contended that the seniority list was published and made available to each and every employee with a view to ensure that the employee should know that they were correctly placed in the seniority list and the petitioners cannot be heard after six years to say that they merely checked the seniority list only in the year 1986. Alternatively it was also contended in the said affidavit that if at all the petitioners felt genuinel aggrieved they should have disputed the seniority list in the month of January 1985 itself. It is pertinent to note here that the 1st respondent Bank brought no material on record to show that the seniority list which was published as far back as in December 1982 was freely available to all the employees. As a matter of fact the said averment made by Mr. Nevrekar in his affidavit appears to be false because this All India Seniority List of Officers as on 31st December, 1982 was admittedly published in the form of a booklet in the month of March 1984. It is also important to note that the 1st respondent Bank did not bring any material on record to show as to why and in what manner the seniority list was made available to each and every employee. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Mr. G.R. Novrekar seems to have made an attempt to misguide this Court by making a bald statement in his affidavit that the seniority list was made available to each and every employee. I find lot of substance in the argument of Mr. Chopra that the petitioners would not have bothered to study the seniority list in the year 1982 because admittedly between 1979 and 1982 no promotion had actually taken place. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that there was no delay of six years in filing this writ petition. I find lot of substance in the argument of Mr. Chopra that the petitioners would not have bothered to study the seniority list in the year 1982 because admittedly between 1979 and 1982 no promotion had actually taken place. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that there was no delay of six years in filing this writ petition. 6. Mr. Talsania urged that admittedly the petitioners had, come to know about the seniority list in the month of January 1985 and they filed the present writ petition only in the month of August 1986 and therefore there was a delay of one and a half years which has not been explained at all. Relying upon the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Talsania submitted that a person aggrieved by an order of promotion of a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or atleast a year of such promotion but he forgot to notice further in the same judgment the observations of the Supreme Court that "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 22 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of certain length of time". Be that as it may, this Supreme Court's judgement relied upon by Mr. Talsania is not relevant to the facts of our case because in the said case there was a delay of 14 years in approaching the Court. At any rate, I am not inclined to non-suit the petitioners merely on the ground that they approached this Court after a lapse of about 18 months as on merits they have a case which I shall presently point out. Justice which is very much there in favour of the petitioners cannot be denied to them on a technical plea that they approached this Court 18 to 19 months after the cause of action arose in their favour. 7. Admittedly, the service conditions of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 are governed by the Dena Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. 7. Admittedly, the service conditions of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 are governed by the Dena Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. These Regulations are made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 read with sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 by the Board of Directors of Dena Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Therefore, these regulations have the statutory force which cannot be displayed by the board's resolution. Chapter II of these regulations deals with grades and categorisation of posts as under: "(a) Top Executive Grade Scale VII Rs. 3000-125-3500 Scale VI Rs. 2750-125-3250 (b) Senior Management Grade Scale V Rs.2500-100-2700 Scale IV Rs. 2000-100-2400 (c) Middle Management Grade Scale III Rs. 1800-75-2250 Scale II Rs. 1200-70-1550-75-2000 (d) Junior Management Grade Scale I Rs. 700-40-900-50- 1100-EB-1200-60-1800." Chapter III deals with the fitment of existing officers and promotees in the new grades and scales of pay. Chapter IV deals with appointment, probation, confirmation, promotion, seniority and termination. It is to be seen that if an employee of the Dena Bank is shifted from Scale I of the Junior Management Grade to Scale II of the Middle Management Grade, it means he gets promotion from Scale I to Scale II. Regulation 17 deals with the promotion aspect of the employees of the 1st respondent Bank. Those promotions to all grades of officers are to be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the government, if any. Accordingly, in these regulations itself the guidelines issued by the Government are incorporated. Five factors are taken into consideration a as relevant for promotion decisions. They are, Seniority, Educational, Professional, Qualifications, Banking Knowledge, Performance and Potential. The weightage for various factors in the promotion are indicated in the following chart. Weightage (Percentage Points) Movement Seniority Educatio- Performance Potential --------------- ---------- nal/Profe- ----------------- service in ssionalQua- Written Performa- the Scale lifications Examin- nce appra- ation isal From Junior Management Grade-Scale 30 10 40 10 10 I to Middle Management Grade/Scale II. 8. According to the procedure laid down for awarding the aggregate marks, for seniority 2 marks are awarded for every completed year of service in respective scale. 8. According to the procedure laid down for awarding the aggregate marks, for seniority 2 marks are awarded for every completed year of service in respective scale. So long as educational qualifications are concerned, 2 marks are given for graduation, 2 marks for post graduation/double graduation, 3 marks for specialised higher qualifications such as Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant, MBA and Engineering Degree and Diplomas awarded by recognised Institutes of Professional Management where the duration of the Diploma Course will be two years or more. The maximum marks for educational qualifications will be 10. Different procedure is envisaged for the performance and interview with which we are not concerned in the present petition. These Regulations, therefore show that in the matter of promotions, respondents 2 to 13 would have been at the most entitled to 3 marks for their specialised higher qualifications such as Chartered Accountants and/or Cost Accountants but on a specious ground that they were Chartered Accountants and Cost Accountants, the 1st respondent Bank promoted them from Scale I to Scale II which, in my opinion, would not be permissible by the Regulations. 9. Mr. Talsania urged that respondents 2 to 13 were properly categorised in accordance with Regulation 6(1) which empowers the board to categorise such employees, regard being had to the responsibilities and functions exercisable by them and such categorisation may be reviewed by the Board. It is important to note that categorisation can be done in respect of post and not that in the name of categorisation one can be promoted from one post to another. It is also pertient to note that as a matter of fact, the 1st respondent Bank did not intend to categorise respondents 2 to 13 if one looks at the Board's resolution dated January 19,1980 which speaks in terms of fitment of Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant in Middle Management Grade, i e. Scale II. A note put up for the approval of the Board by the Dy. General Manager (Personnel) on January 12, 1980 also shows that the subject was regarding fitment of Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant in the Middle Management Grade-Scale II. It should be borne in mind that fitment could be in the same pay scale and never from one pay scale to another pay scale. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not quite clear whether respondents 2 to 13 were actually categorised or they were properly fitted. Mr. It should be borne in mind that fitment could be in the same pay scale and never from one pay scale to another pay scale. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not quite clear whether respondents 2 to 13 were actually categorised or they were properly fitted. Mr. Talsania argued that respondents 2 to 13 were in fat classified and put in a proper classification from Scale I to Scale II which, in his opinion, was not a promotion. Mr. Talsania further argued that this classification of respondents 2 to 13 was based on their educational qualifications and further submitted, relying upon two Supreme Court's judgements. In the case of (V. Markandeya others v. State of Andhra Pradesh other)2, (1989)I C.L.R. (S.C.) 658 and in the case of (Mew Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others)3, (1989)I C.L.R. (S.C.) 671. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that classification of employees can be made on the basis of educational qualifications for the purposes of promotion but that would be in the same service and not from one scale to another. Therefore, the Supreme Courts judgements relied upon by Mr. Talsania are not relevant to the facts of the present case. Respondents 2 to 13 therefore could not have been promoted from Scale I to Scale II either in the name of categorisation or fitment or classification overlooking the seniority of the petitioners. That was done by the 1st respondent in blatant violation of the said regulation of 1979. This has resulted into injustice to the petitioners. However, it is an admitted position the petitioners were promoted from Scale I to Scale II effective from June 1, 1982, which promotions they were entitled to effective from January 1, 1980 when respondents 2 to 13 who were juniors to them were promoted. This grave error which the 1st respondent Bank committed will have, therefore to be rectified. 10. In this view of the matter the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The 1st respondent Bank is directed to grant the petitioners deemed promotion effective from January 1, 1980 and give them all the benefits in Scale II and also put them in proper seniority vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 13. Rule is accordingly made absolute with costs. Petition allowed ----