Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 36 (PAT)

Umesh Kumar v. State Bank Of India

1991-01-22

B.N.AGRAWAL, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body1991
Judgment S. K. Singh, J. 1. The petitioners who are Agricultural Assistants in State bank of India, respondent no.1, have challenged the legality of decision contained in a communication dated 15th of September, 1987, issued by respondent no.3, whereby the purported decision of the Executive Committee of the central Board of the State Bank of India dated 7th August, 1987, has been circulated for compliance. According to the circular, it was decided to discontinue the then existing system of promotion of Agricultural Assistants to the posts of Rural Development Officers/trainee Rural Development Officers. The said communication is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents for consideration of their cases for promotion to the posts of Rural development Officers/trainee Rural Development Officers on the basis of the rule prevailing prior to the agreement dated 22-11-1986 arrived at between the all India Bank Federation and the respondent State Bank of India hereinafter referred to as the bank. 2. According to the petitoners, prior to 1979 the lowest post in the agricultural banking side was that of Agricultural Assistant in the State Bank of India, the minimum qualification for the post was B. Sc, (Agriculture), whereas for the parallel clerical cadre, the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Cashier/clerk-cum-Typist was Matriculation. The Agricultural Assistants used to be promoted to the next higher post of Trainee Officer (Agricultural) Grade II, and Technical Officer (Agricultural) Grade III. Similarly in the general clerical side, the promotional avenue was the post of officers Grade 11. In respect of these assertions reference was made to State bank of Indias Circular Nos.71/79 and 118/78. 3. It is further stated that in 1979, the Executive Committee of the central Board of the Bank created a cadre of Rural Development Officers and technical Officers (Agricultural) were designated as Rural Development officers. A copy of the said decision is Annexure-2 to this writ petition. The posts of Rural Development Officers were to be filled up by promotions from amongst the Agricultural Assistants. Later in the same year on the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, the Bank merged the different grades and the Rural Development Officers Grade I and II were unified into one combined Grade known as Junior Management Grade Scale I, although their designation continued as Rural Development Officers. Later in the same year on the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, the Bank merged the different grades and the Rural Development Officers Grade I and II were unified into one combined Grade known as Junior Management Grade Scale I, although their designation continued as Rural Development Officers. The posts of rural Development Officers are filled up by three modes : Firstly, through direct recruitment from persons holding degree in Agricultural Science, secondly, by promotions from the Agricultural Assistants with experience of four years, and lastly by promoting Agricultural Assistants with eight years experience. The direct recuits were designated as Rural Development Officers, whereas those promoted from Agricultural Assistants were designated as trainee Rural Development Officers during their two years training and as rural Development Officers after completion of the training. 4. It is, however, stated in the writ petition tbat the Bank has not recruited Rural Development Officers by the third mode since 1980-81, and by the second mode since 1983-84 although the respondent Bank conducted examination every year for clerk-cum-cashier/clerk-cum-typist on the general side for promotion to the next higher post known as Junior Management Grade scale I Officers. As such according to the writ petitioners who were appointed between 1977 and 1983 were deprived of their chances of promotion. 5. In 1983 the Bank set up Bhatnagar Committee for examining effectiveness of the cadre of the Rural Development Officers. The said committee examined the matter and recommended continuation of the existing system. In the year 1984 a memorandnm of settlement was arrived at between the bank and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation in regard to revision of wages of the staff and the duties of the Agricultural Assistants. By letter dated 27-11-1985 (Annexure-4) the local Head Office of the State Bank of india, Patna, asked the Rural Development Officers to exercise their option it they desired integration into the main stream of general banking cadre. In pursuance thereof several Rural Development Officers opted for the general line and in consequence thereof got promotion to Middle Management Grade seale-11 with effect from 1-8-1983, 1-8-1984 and 1-8-1985, reference, of which are made in Annexures-6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition. 6. In pursuance thereof several Rural Development Officers opted for the general line and in consequence thereof got promotion to Middle Management Grade seale-11 with effect from 1-8-1983, 1-8-1984 and 1-8-1985, reference, of which are made in Annexures-6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition. 6. The petitioners have asserted that consequent upon the exercise of option for change of the cadre by Rural Development Officers several posts of rural Development Officers fell vacant and although the petitioners and other agricultural Assistants are eligible for promotion to these posts these posts remained unfilled. 7. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that while they were expecting promotions against these vacancies they came to know that the Bank, in an arbitrary manner, had entered into an agreement with the All india State Bank of India Officers Federation and the All India State Bank of india Staff Federation on 22-11-1986 whereby it was decided to discontinue the rule of promotion to the posts of Rural Develoment Officers and Trainee rural Development Officers from the Agricultural Assistants and the said posts were now to be filled up by Junior Management Grade Scale-I officers the general line. It was also decided that such of those Agricultural assistants, who want promotion may take advanta in the general side of the higher Grade of Junior Management Grade Scale I by competing along with clerks-cum-cashiers/clerk-cum-typists in the requisite test. A copy of the said agreement has been annexed as Annexure-9. It has been stated that in the said meeting no representative from the specialised side, i. e. , of the agricultural Assistants was present. The said agreement was circulated to all officers in Patna Circle by letter dated 29-6-1987 (Annexure-10 ). 8. The petitioners as well others having been aggrieved by the above mentioned agreement filed representations to the Chief General Manager of the Bank at Patna (Annexure-1) but no action was taken on the said representation on the other hand it is alleged that the Executive Committee of the central Board of the Bank affirmed the aforesaid agreement by the impugned communication of 15-9-1987. It has been further stated that the cadre which was created under the rules in the year 1979 (Annexure-3) is still in existence and the same has neither been superseded nor abolished nor merged with any other cadre. It has been further stated that the cadre which was created under the rules in the year 1979 (Annexure-3) is still in existence and the same has neither been superseded nor abolished nor merged with any other cadre. According to the petitioners, even if the said agreement is held to be legal still the posts of Rural Development Officers which had fallen vacant prior to the issuance of Annexure-1 should at least be filled up by way of appointment/promotions on the basis of 197 9cadre rules, in this connection reference has been made to the recommendations of Bhata-nagar Committee to show that the impugned decision of the Bank is against the recommendation of the Committee. 9. According to the writ petitioners, the requisite qualification for recruitment on the general side and the technical side are quite different. The nature of examination for the purpose of promotion from Agricultural assistants to Rural Development Officers vis-a-vis the examination for promotion of the clerks on the general side are completely different. It has also been stated that because of the impugned decision the petitioners have been placed under great disadvantage as they will now have to appear in one part or both parts of Banking examination known as C. A. I. I. B. Examination. As the petitioners have got no experience of accountancy etc. , the clerks on the general side will have edge over the petitioners. 10. The Bank on the other hand has contested the aforesaid stand by filing a detailed counter affidavit. According to the said reply of the Bank, on consideration of certain developments the Bank introduced the cadre of rural Development Officers. Subsequently, on further examination the Bank decided not to induct fresh Rural Development Officers in the cadre. Accordingly the cadre of existing Rural Development Officers has been integrated with the general cadre of the officers primarily because the Rural Development officers were also discharging the general bank functions. The existing Rural Development Officers were given option to continue in their existing cadre or to opt for the general cadre. Those Rural Development officers who opted for integration with the general cadre were allowed to do so. Those who did not opt were allowed to remain as such up to their next promotion. The existing Rural Development Officers were given option to continue in their existing cadre or to opt for the general cadre. Those Rural Development officers who opted for integration with the general cadre were allowed to do so. Those who did not opt were allowed to remain as such up to their next promotion. The petitioners did not belong to the cadre of Rural Development Officers and as such they can not object to the integration of the existing cadre of rural Development Officers with that of general cadre officers. 11. The further stand of the Bank is that the said decision regarding integration of the said cadre of R. D. Os, was taken by the Bank after taking into consideration their own interest as well as the interest of its employees. The apprehension of the petitioners that their promotional avenues shall be closed has also been denied by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank. The opportunity for promotion to R. D. Os. , from the Agricultutal assistants was a limited opportunity and was much less than those available to the persons in the general cadre. As a matter of fact on account of representations of the employees for widening of the promotional opportunity of Agricultural Assistants the said decision to merge the cadre was taken According to the Bank, the communication under Annexure-1 was a policy decision of the Bank taken in order to maintain smooth functioning of the Bank. The respondents have further stated that the said policy decision was taken in public interest and in the larger interest of the employee. From the averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that there are basically three categories of employees in the Bank: they are officer employees, clerical cadre and subordinate cadre. The posts of Clerks, Typists, cashiers and Agricultural Assistants fall under the clerical cadre. The employees of clerical cadre and subordinate cadre are commonly knows as award Staffs, since their service conditions are governed by the Bank award commonly known as "sastry Award" as modified by "desai Award" read with bipartite settlement made from time to time. The said decision has also been supported by enumerating the circumstances under which the bank found that in practice the function of the R. D. Os. were part of general banking operations. The said decision has also been supported by enumerating the circumstances under which the bank found that in practice the function of the R. D. Os. were part of general banking operations. After due consideration of all these aspects the Bank has taken the said policy decision. 12. According to the respondents, the Impugned decision wider promotional opportunity to Junior Management Grade Scale I has been given to the petitioners in the same manner as was available to general clerical cadre staff. It has further been submitted that under the present policy decision, the Agricultural Assistant, who were eligible for promotion to the next higher Grade of Officers of Junior Management Grade Scale I only to the posts of R. D. Os. /trainee R, D. Os. , where the vacancy was bound to be limited, shall now under the present policy decision, be eligible for promotion in the officers Cadre in Junior Management Grade Scale I and thereafter, to the next higher Grade of the officers in accordance with the existing rules of promotion. Thus, the above policy decision can not in any way be said to be of any disadvantage to the petitioners rather the same is much broad based and in the interest of larger section of the employees which has been arrived at as a result of agreement between the highest representative body and the Management of the Bank. It has been further stated that those r. D. Os. who have not opted for integration into the general cadre are adequate to feed the technical need of the Bank and as such there is no question for making further promotion to the posts of R. D. Os. As such it has been stated that the impugned decision (Annexure-1) can not be assailed. 13. It has further been stated that the Bank is vested with the power to alter and change the service conditions of its employees. The apprehension of the petitioners that they may not be able to compete with other general clerks has been said to be unfounded as the said promotion is based on knowledge of geaeral banking. The attention of the Court was also drawn to the recommendation of the Pillai Committee under Paragraphs 5.29 of its report. The apprehension of the petitioners that they may not be able to compete with other general clerks has been said to be unfounded as the said promotion is based on knowledge of geaeral banking. The attention of the Court was also drawn to the recommendation of the Pillai Committee under Paragraphs 5.29 of its report. One of the recommendations was for taking early steps for integration of the existing specialised officers with the general banking line and all specialised officers were to be placed in Scale I. The Committee has recommended that specialised officers who already in service should be given equal opportunity for promotion along with the general line officers. It is stated that the present decision was taken in the light of aforesaid recommendation. 14. Shri Sarojendu Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has assailed the decision mainly on the following grounds: (a) The impugned order stopping the promotional avenues of the agricultural Assistants as R. D. Os. is bad as the said order is based on an agreement entered in by the Bank with All India s. B. I Officers Federation to which the Agricultural Assistants were not a party and also on the ground that the same are unreasonable. (b) The impugned order has taken away the legal right of the Agricultural assistants for promotion and as such the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (c) The so called promotional opportunities given to the Agricultural assistants along with the general clerks are wholly illusory and thus infringes the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (d) The syllebus of examination prescribed under the eligibility criteria is discriminatory in as much as the same is against the technical qualification and experience of Agricultural Assistants and is an advantage to the clerks of the general side. (e) The Bank is legally bound to till up the vacancy to the posts of r. D. Os. /trainee R. D. Os. which accused prior to 15th of september, 1987, from amongst the Agricultural Assistants. 15. The attention of the Court has been drawn to a circular of the Bank dated 9-1-1975 (Annexure-14) which provides eligibility criteria and procedure for appointment of Trainee Officers (Agricultural ). /trainee R. D. Os. which accused prior to 15th of september, 1987, from amongst the Agricultural Assistants. 15. The attention of the Court has been drawn to a circular of the Bank dated 9-1-1975 (Annexure-14) which provides eligibility criteria and procedure for appointment of Trainee Officers (Agricultural ). According to the said circular, a separate cadre of Trainee Officers (Agricultural) was created to be filled by promotions of eligible Agricultural Assistants. Annexure-16 is the direction of the Reserve Bank of India, to All the Commercial Banks including the Respondent Bank for deployment of at least one Agricultural Field officer qualified or trained in Agricultural Financing at each branch of a bank. Annexure 17 is another circular by the Reserve Bank of India dated 23-3-1985 asking banks to give preference to graduates in agriculture for being appointed as Agricultural Field Officers. 16. The grievance of the petitioners is also with regard to the "eligibility criteria" mentioned in the circular dated 29-6-1987 (Annexurt-10), which provides, inter alia, lor promotional opportunities to Agricultural assistants who satisfy the eligibility norms and appear in the written test for appointment as Trainee Officers and promotion as Junior Management Grade scale I Officers in the general cadre. 17. The eligibility criteria is indicated below : There are two modes of promotions from clerical Grade :- One as Trainee Officer, and the other as junior Management Grade, Scale 1, Officer for appointment/promotion as trainee Officer, the conditions precedent are that ;- (a) For graduates, they must have put in four years service and must have passed Part I of the Institute of Bankers Examination, and for non-graduate, including matriculates, they must have passed both part of the Institute of Bankers Examination. (b) The appointment shall be on the result of limited competitive test in two papers, namely, general knowledge and banking. The details of the syllabus for written examination in banking are given at pages 143 and 145 of the reference book on staff matters, volume-II. (c) Must not be over 36 years of age. 18. According to the petitioners, the Agricultural Assistants who are graduates in Agriculture would be debarred from appearing at the said departmental examination for appointment/promotion as Trainee Officers, for their not having passed Part 1 of the Institute of Bankers Examination. (c) Must not be over 36 years of age. 18. According to the petitioners, the Agricultural Assistants who are graduates in Agriculture would be debarred from appearing at the said departmental examination for appointment/promotion as Trainee Officers, for their not having passed Part 1 of the Institute of Bankers Examination. According to the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, passing of the aforesaid Bankers Examination was not a condition precedent for appointment of the petiteners as Agricultural Assistants. Similarly so far as the next mode of promotion to the Junior Management Grade Scale I is concerned the eligibility criterias are balanced against them as the syllabus of the written test relates to banking procedure and the petitioners would have little chance of competing with their counter parts, namely, the Clerks of the general side. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Agricultural Assistants are not only affected, due to the aforesaid criterias fixed by the Bank but rather debarred from any promotion on the general side either as Trainee Officer or as a Junior management Grade Scale I Officer. According to his contention the promotional avenues bestowed to the Agricultural Assistants are illusory and, in fact, actually nil. 19. Shri Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the aforesaid merging of cadre of Agricultural Assistunts with that of the clerks of the general cadre amounted to taking away the promotional opportunities of the Agricultural Assistants to the posts of R. D. Os. /trainee R. D, os. and is illegal, discriminatory and unreasonable iu as much as the source of appointment of the clerks is in the general cadre, their qualifications and duties are different from those of the Agricultural Assistants. According to sri Mukherjee these two unequals cannot be treated as equals particularly, when no consent had been taken from the Agricultural Assistant. He laid stress on the point that both are separate and distinct. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Daya Nand Jha v. Lalit Narain Mithila University, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1200 . In the aforesaid case legality of the order of transfer of a principal of college by the vice-Chancellor of the University under Sec.10 (4) of the Bihar State university Act.1976, to the post of reader in another college was under challenge. In the aforesaid case legality of the order of transfer of a principal of college by the vice-Chancellor of the University under Sec.10 (4) of the Bihar State university Act.1976, to the post of reader in another college was under challenge. The question that fell for consideration was the meaning of the word "equivalent Post". The Supreme Court held that the post of principal and reader cannot be regarded as of equal status and responsibilites. The true criteria for equivalance is the status, nature, responsibilities and duties attached to the two posts. In my view the aforesaid decision does not help the petitioner in any way. The other decision relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee to support his contention that the majority of the Staff can not thwart away or barter the rights of the petitioners is reported in Reserve Bank of India and others V/s. C. N. Sahasranama and others, AIR 1986 SC 1830 . In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court upheld that the majority of the employees can not trample upon the constitutional guarantees of rights of the individual or minority employees. The Supreme Court however held that in judging the content of the constitutional rights, the entire prespective of equality of opportunity and denial of equal right in public employment have to be viewed in a fair, reasonable and just prespective. It was further held that at times there may be individual instances examplifying in justice by postponing or delaying the chances of promotions of individuals. The Supreme Court observed that with whatever care and objectivity or foresight any rule is framed, some hardship, inconvenience or injustice might result but the paramount consideration is the reconciliation of the conflicting claims. The supreme Court held that in service jurisprudence there can not be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, and reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not touchstone. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment held that the scheme as modified by the Bank and as accepted by the vast majority of their employees was a proper and just scheme and did not suffer from the vice of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. Mr. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment held that the scheme as modified by the Bank and as accepted by the vast majority of their employees was a proper and just scheme and did not suffer from the vice of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. Mr. Mukherjee has also cited the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Raghunath Prasad Singh V/s. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, government of Bihar AIR 1988 SC 1033 . In the a foresaid decision the apex court has held that provision for reasonable promotional opportunities generate; efficiency in service while stagnation kills the desire to serve properly and makes the service ineffective. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the state Police in the Wireless Organisation within six months and in case the state failed to comply, it should give fresh opportunity for exercising option to revert to the general police cadre. Similar is the decision of the Supreme court in the case Dr. Mrs. O. Z. Hussain V/s. Union of India, reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 52 (SC ). The above mentioned decisions are of no avail to the petitioners. Here there is no question of non-availability of promotional avenues to the petitioners. According to the impugned circular Agricultural assistants inciting the petitioners are eligible for promotion. There are promotional avenues for the petitioners, in as much as they along with the clerks of the general cadre are eligible for promotion to the posts ot Junior Management officers through the channel of Trainee Officers. Thus these decisions do not support the contention of the petitioners that the eligibility criterias make the promotional avenues illusory. More over from the facts stated in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the R. D. Os were also discharging banking functions in the general line. The impugned decision on the other hand has widened the promotional avenues of the Agricultural Assistants. The eligibility criteria, fixed for such appointment/promotion are in no way unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. 21. More over from the facts stated in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the R. D. Os were also discharging banking functions in the general line. The impugned decision on the other hand has widened the promotional avenues of the Agricultural Assistants. The eligibility criteria, fixed for such appointment/promotion are in no way unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. 21. To support the contention that Annexure-1 is bad in law on the around of being unreasonable reliance has been placed on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Menka Gandhi V/s. Union of India, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness in States actions and ensures an equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness. The action should be right iust and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In the present case the action of the Bank can not be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair. 22. Sri Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, submitted that the Agricultural Assistants and the clerks of the general sides are of the same cadre, as stated earlier. According to the Bank there are only three categories of employees in the Bank. The posts of clerks, typists cashiers and Agricultural Assistants falls in the category ot clerk cadre commonly known as "award Staffs". Circular No.69 of 1987 dated 29 6 1987 (Annexure-10) states that a decision was taken to do away with the recruitment/promotion to the cadre of R. D. Os. In view of the said decision it was decided not to recruit or promote any fresh R. D. Os. But the said circular also provides that with a view to give promotional opportunities to the Agricultural Assistants, who satisfy the eligibility norms, they are permitted to appear in the written test for appointment as Trainee Officers and promotion as Officers of Junior Management Grade Scale I. He has also referred to Schedule II-A of the bipartite agreement under which special allowance was agreed to be payable to the clerical staffs. In the said list of the different clerical staffs Agricultural Assistants are also mentioned at serial No 20 Reference was also made by Sri Prasad to Paragraph-317 of chapter XV of the Award under the Industrial Dispute Act between certain banks and their workmen (popularly known as the "sastry Award" ). From the aforesaid paragraph it is evident that ordinarily the members of the Bank staff are classified as 11) Officers (2) Clerks and (3) Subordinate Staffs. Thus reading the aforesaid clause of Sastry Award with Schedule II-A of the bipartite agreement there can not be any doubt that clerks in the general side and the Agricultural Assistants belong to the same cadre. The aforesaid view also finds support from State Bank of Indias hand book at page-6 on settlement dated 17-9-1984 on certain conditions of Bank employees. 23. According to Mr. Prasad learned counsel for the Bank the impugned annexure is not arbitrary rather reasons have been assigned and the same is a policy decision of the Bank. According to him as the said decision is a policy decision the Court should not interfere with the same. 24. At this stage it would be relevant to quote some provisions of the state Bank of India Act, 1955. section 17-Management.- (1) The general superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of the State Bank shall be entrusted to the Central Board which may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the state Bank and are not by this Act expressly directed or required to be done by the State Bank in general meeting. (2) The Central Board in discharging its functions shall act on business principles, regard being had to public interest. Sec.18- Central Board to be guided by directions of Central government.- (1) In the discharge of its functions (including those relating to a subsidiary bank) the State Bank shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Chairman of the State Bank give to it. (2) All directions given by the Central Government shall be given through the Reserve Bank and, if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter ot policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final. (2) All directions given by the Central Government shall be given through the Reserve Bank and, if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter ot policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final. Sec.43-Stale Bank may appoint officers and other employees.- (1) The State Bank may appoint such number of officers, advisers and employees as it considers necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions, and determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. (2) The officers, advisers and employees of the State Bank shall exercise such powers and perform such duties (as may by general or special order, be) entrusted or deligated to them by the Central board. " 25. Section 35 (A) and Sec.51 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is as follows : "section 35-A Power to the Reserve Bank to give directions.- (1)Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that- (a) in the public interest ; or (aa) in the interest of banking policy; or (b) to prevent the afairs of a banking company being conducted in a manner detrimental to the iatarests of the depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the banking company ; or (c) to secure the proper management of any banking company generally ; it is necessary to issue directions to banking companies generally or to any banking company in particular, it may, from time to time, issue such directions as it deems fit, and the banking companies or the banking company as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2) The Reserve Bank may, on representation made to it or on its own motion, modify or cancle any direction issued under Subsection (1) and in so modifying or cancelling any direction may impose such conditions as it thinks fit, subject to which the notification or cancellation shall have effect. " 26. Referring to the circulars, as contained in Annexures-16 and 22 mr. Prasad submitted that the same have no force of law because the said circulates were not issued by the Central Government According to him the. Government of India could communicate its decisions through the Reserve bank of India which was not done. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Shri Sitaram Company Limited and am. V/s. Union of India and ors. Government of India could communicate its decisions through the Reserve bank of India which was not done. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Shri Sitaram Company Limited and am. V/s. Union of India and ors. , reported in 1990 (3) SCC 223 at paragraph-59. "it is a matter of policy and planning for the Central Government to decide whether it would be. on adoption of a system of partial control, in the best economic interest-of the sugar industry and the general public that the sugar factories are grouped together with reference to geographical-cum-agro-economic factors for the purpose of determining the price of levy sugar. Sufficient power has been delegated to the Central Government to formulate and implement its policy decision by means of statutory instruments and executive orders. Whether the policy should be altered to devide the sugar industry into groups of units with similar cost characteristics with particular reference to recovery, duration, size and age of the units and capital cost per tonne of output, without regard to the their location, as recommended by the BICP, is again a matter for the Central Government to decide. What is best for the sugar industry and in what matter the policy should be formulated and implemented bearing in mind the fundamental object of the statute, viz, supply and equitable distribution of essential commodity at fair prices in the best interest of the general public is a matter for decision exclusively within the province of the Central Government. Such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review. " I find force in the submission Shri Prasad and as such the aforesaid circulars have got no force in law.27. Mr. Prasad with his lucid and forceful argument submitted that the impugned decision (Annexure-1) is a policy decision taken under Sec.17 of the S. B I. Act, 1953 and as such the same is not justiciable and the same cannot be challenged in a Court of law unless it is found to be arbitrary. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of n. Ramanath Piliai V/s. State of Kerala and others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 27 In the aforesaid case the question that fell for consideration was as to whether the Government has a right to abolish a post in a service. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of n. Ramanath Piliai V/s. State of Kerala and others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 27 In the aforesaid case the question that fell for consideration was as to whether the Government has a right to abolish a post in a service. The supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions reported In Champaklal chimanlal Shah V/s. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854 and Moti Ram Dekanand others V/s. General Manager North East Frontier Railway and others AIR 1964 SC 600 , held that the power to create or abolish a post is not related to the doctrine of pleasure. It is a matter of Government policy, Every soverign government has thus power which has to be exercised in the interest of necessity of internal administration. The creation of abolition of posts is decided by policy decision exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. Thus the ratio decided in the aforesaid case is applicable in the present case as also. In the instant case it is manifest that the impugned decision is a policy decision taken by the Bank and the same can not be said to be arbitrary. The Bank by virtue of the statutory powers has to take such a decision which is in the larger interest of its employees including the petitioners. 28. Mr. Prasad also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of K. Rajendran and others V/s. State of Tamilnadu and others, reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1107. In the aforesaid case the legality of Tamilnadu Village Officers Services Rule 1970 was under challenge by the aforesaid rule the posts ot the officials appointed after 16-12-1970 was abolished. The Supreme Court held that termination of services brought about by abolition of posts effected in good faith can not attract Article 311 (2) ot the Constitution of India. It was also held that the said act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 29. The Supreme Court held that termination of services brought about by abolition of posts effected in good faith can not attract Article 311 (2) ot the Constitution of India. It was also held that the said act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 29. Reference was also made to the case of Reserve Bank of India V/s. C. T. Dighe and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1699 In the said case the grievance related to the changes made in the service conditions affecting the chances of promotion of the applicants before the apex court The Supreme court held that it is well settled that a rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to his condition of service, but is not so if it affects his chance of promotion only. It has further been held that alteration in condition of eligibility governing the employees belonging to a particular cadre can not amount to changing the condition of service of employees who belong to another cadre. The changes introduced may have an impact on the promotional prospects of the employees, but it can not be said that this would amount to changing their service conditions. 30. The Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India V/s. N. C. Paliwal and others, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2345 recognised that whenever the services are integrated some hardships are bound to result. The reasonable anticipation should be belied. 31. In the case of Roshan Lal Tandon and others V/s. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1989 a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme court while considering the constitutional validity of the notification of the railway Board regarding absorption of direct recruit and promotee in one cadre held that the service conditions can be altered unilaterally. A reference was also made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative central Bank Ltd. and others V/s. Additional Industrial Tribunal, A. P. Hyderabad and others, reported in AIR 1970 SC 245 and in the case of State of Andhra pradesh and anothers V/s. V. Sadanandam and others, reported in 1989 (1) Supp. SCC 574 and a decision of Kerala High Court in case of A. M. Mani V/s. Kerala state Electricity Board and ors. , reported in AIR 1968 (Kerala) 76. 32. The submission of Mr. SCC 574 and a decision of Kerala High Court in case of A. M. Mani V/s. Kerala state Electricity Board and ors. , reported in AIR 1968 (Kerala) 76. 32. The submission of Mr. Prasad is well founded and must be accepted i have no hegitation to hold that the decision of the Bank (Annexure-1) is as a result of policy decision and the same is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The apprehension of the petitioners are not well founded. After consideration of the facts and various decisions, referred to above, it can not be said that the promotional avenues of the Agricultural Assistants have been closed rather, in my view, the same have been widened. The eligibility criteria appended to the notification can not be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable. 33. After giving my anxious consideration I find no merit in the writ petition and as such the same is dismissed but in facts and circumstances of the present case the parcies shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.