JUDGMENT 1. The only question that falls for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the Punjab National Bank which is a Nationalised Bank can, according to norms laid down in it, give employment to a person in the Sub-ordinate cadre whose name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The question arises in the context of the petitioners' claim that they are entitled to get permanent appointment to the post of peon in the Calcutta Zone of the Bank as they have worked for more than 3 years as personal drivers of high Officials of the Bank in Calcutta and have fulfilled other eligibility criteria sat down by the Bank. According to the petitioners to get such an appointment they are required to have their names registered with the Employment Exchange but it is not necessary that their names have also to be sponsored by the Exchange. In support of their above contention they have not only relied upon certain circulars and correspondences relating to the above issue but also upon the fact that in other zones, persons similarly placed and circumstanced have got jobs as Peons. 2. Interestingly enough the above claim of the petitioners have been refuted not by the Management of the Bank, but by the Punjab National Bank Shramik Union which was allowed to contest this writ petition on a prayer made by it for being added as a Duty-respondent. According to the Union which campions the cause of the Bank employees. the Bank has laid down specific norms relating to appointment of Sub-ordinate staff and one of these norms is that the candidates have to be sponsored by local Employment Exchange. The Union however concedes that the petitioners fulfill all other requirements for appointment as peons. In the context of the above facts, to answer the question raised it will be necessary to carefully look into the relevant circulars and correspondences for their import. 3. The Union however concedes that the petitioners fulfill all other requirements for appointment as peons. In the context of the above facts, to answer the question raised it will be necessary to carefully look into the relevant circulars and correspondences for their import. 3. The first circular relating to recruitment of Sub-ordinate staff, which is relevant for our present purpose, was issued by the Management Development Department of the Head Office of the Bank, New Delhi on 20.4.1972 and the 5th specification thereof expressly provides, inter alia, that as the when vacancy arises (in the sub-ordinate cadre) the nearest Employment Exchange should be notified of the vacancies and the candidates sponsored by them should be screened and thereafter interviewed to select the best ones for appointment to the posts. In this circular, Peons have been specifically included in the cadre of the Sub-ordinate staff and other specifications relating to Educational qualifications, age, character etc. have been spelt out, Thereafter by a circular dated 30.9.1978 the Government of India apprised, among others, the Chairman and Managing Director of all nationalised Banks that executive instructions issued by the Government required that all vacancies arising under the Central Government Offices/Establishments including Statutory organisations, irrespective of the nature and duration of the vacancy were not only to be notified but also to be filled from the Employment Exchange alone and other permissible sources could be tapped only if Employment Exchange issued a non-availability certificate, and requested the Banks to follow the above instructions while recruiting Sub-staff posts. Subsequent two circulars dated 9.2.1979 and 29.8.1979 sent by the Personnel Division of the Head Office of the Bank to all its Regional Managers reiterated the above requirement and asked them to strictly comply with the same. Another circular was issued on 23.10.1983 by the Head Office giving instructions to the Regional Offices as to the manner of fulfilling the above requirement. 4. The next circular on the above subject, in point of time, is dated 18.4.1987 issued by the Head Office. As such reliance has been placed by the petitioners on this circular to justify their claim, the same is extracted. 5. 4. The next circular on the above subject, in point of time, is dated 18.4.1987 issued by the Head Office. As such reliance has been placed by the petitioners on this circular to justify their claim, the same is extracted. 5. According to the petitioners the above circular has done away with the earlier requirement of recruitment to the posts of Sub-ordinate staff through Employment Exchange only and to bring home their point, emphasis has been laid on the word 'etc.' as appearing in the last para of the above quoted circular. The petitioners have contended that none of the wards "eligibility qualification, physical fitness", which procede the word 'etc.', can and do refer to the requirement of Employment Exchange sponsorship and consequently the word 'etc.' which has to be read ejusdem generis-cancot also refer to the above requirement. That necessarily means, according to the petitioners, that though other requirements remained unchanged the requirement of appointment through Employment Exchange stood withdrawn. I am unable to accept the above contention firstly because the circular itself shows that it was regarding ‘age limit’ secondly, because the contents thereof clearly show that it related to the revision of age limit only, thirdly because recruitment through Employment Exchange partains to 'eligibility' clause, fourthly because a word in an inter-departmental circular or correspondence cannot be interpreted in the manner as statutes are interpreted, and lastly because the subsequent circular of the Head Office dated 14.9.1987 indicate that the above requirement is still in force an letters dated 19.10.1987 and 25.9.1989 written by the Zonal Office, Calcutta to the Employment Exchange indicate that candidates for the appointment to the post of peon have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 6. The petitioners, have, however, also relied upon the outcome of the conferences of the Zonal Managers of the Bank on 30.1.1984 on the subject as contained in a letter dated 24.1.1939 addressed by the Head Office to the Zonal Managers and it appears therefrom that they (the Zonal Managers) were told about giving employment opportunities in Bank as Peons to the personal drivers in the event of their putting in at least 3 years' service and their names being registered with Employment Exchange. But then, not only it remained as a proposal only, all subsequent circulars, including the circular dated 18.4.1987 on which the petitioners rely, indicate that the above proposal was not accepted. 7. But then, not only it remained as a proposal only, all subsequent circulars, including the circular dated 18.4.1987 on which the petitioners rely, indicate that the above proposal was not accepted. 7. To support the contention of the petitioners the Bank has however relied upon the comments of the Manager (I.R.) of the Bank's Head Office made in his letters dated 3.6.1987 addressed to the General Manager but then it does, it appear that the same has been accepted by the Bank as yet. On the contrary, even at the risk of repetition, I am may point out that subsequent circulars and letters speak otherwise. 8. For the foregoing discussions, I must hold that in view of the executive instructions given by the Government of India and the Bank, which answers the description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, through their different circulars, it is duty bound to adhere to, conform with and implement the extent norms laid down for appointment to the post of Sub-ordinate staff including peons. As one of the norms thereof is sponsorship of candidates by Employment Exchange, the petitioners cannot get the relief sought for only by registration of names there. 9. It is of course true that the other zones have given appointment to persons similarly circumstanced as the petitioners but then this Court cannot give its judicial imprimature to the wrong so perpetrated. In the result, the application fails and the same is rejected without any order as to costs.