JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that circular dated 7.7.95 (Ann. 3) be declared illegal and respondent be directed to call/allow the petitioner to appear in the aptitude test to be held on 30.7.95 for the post of Computer Operator. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper in the respondent-Bank after due selection on 15.2.1978. Thereafter, he was confirmed on the said post on 15.8.1978. At present he is working as clerk in the Jaipur Branch of the respondent Bank. A circular dated July 7, 1995 was issued by the Bank for selection of computer operators from among the clerks after holding the aptitude test. One of the condition for eligibility of that test was that the employees who are punished for gross misconduct they will not be eligible for test for two years from the date of punishment, therefore the petitioner was not allowed by the respondent to appeal in the aptitude test held on 30.7.95. But on the direction of this Court, the petitioner was allowed to appear in that test, but his result was subject to the decision of this writ petition. 3. Mr. Kasliwal submits that it is true that petitioner was punished twice in two different disciplinary enquiries on 15.9.93 but by imposing of condition in Clause (b) of para 5 of Circular Ann. 3 and in both the enquiries the petitioner was punished with warning and stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect and the currency of penalty has come to an end as soon as the increment was stopped, therefore, on that very ground of punishment, the petitioner should not be denied his right to promotion or to appear in the test for promotion. Mr. Kasliwal also submits that after punishment in the disciplinary enquiries, preventing the petitioner in aptitude test for next promotion will amount to double jeopardy, therefore, the condition imposed in Clause (b) of the aforesaid circular be declared illegal. Ultra-vires of the Constitution and the petitioner be considered for the promotion on the basis of this aptitude test. 4. Mr. Kala, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that at the time of promotion, if his past conduct including the service record and punishment awarded to him can be considered, that is not amount to double jeopardy. Mr. Kala also submits that circular Ann. 4. Mr. Kala, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that at the time of promotion, if his past conduct including the service record and punishment awarded to him can be considered, that is not amount to double jeopardy. Mr. Kala also submits that circular Ann. 3 has been issued on the basis of settlement arrived at between the employer and union of employees. That settlement is reduced in writing and annexed as Ann. R/l. The next settlement was dated July 7, 1995 (Ann. R/2, there also similar condition has been agreed upon by the employer as well as the union of employees, therefore, once in the settlement it is agreed upon by the employer and the union of employees that no employee who was punished, shall be considered for two years after the date of punishment for next higher post. 5. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner faced two departmental enquiries and he was found guilty and punished on 15.9.93. The circular was issued on 7.7.95 and the aptitude test for the promotion on the post of computer operator was conducted on 30.7.95, therefore, it is clear that petitioner has not completed two years from the date of punishment i.e. 15.9.93, Mr. Kasliwal submits that the refusal to petitioner for appearance in the aptitude test for a promotion on the post of computer operator is amount to double jeopardy and specially when the currency of the penalty has come to an end as soon as the increment was stopped. 6. It is true that currency of the penalty has come to an end as soon as the punishment was awarded but whether that fact of punishment can be ignored while his case is being considered for promotion to the next higher post. 7. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 273 , in para 7 of the judgment, their Lordships have observed as under: It would thus be clear that when promotion is under consideration; the previous record forms the basis and when the promotion is on merit and ability, the currency of punishment based on previous record stands as an impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion which is impermissible under the Rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no application and non- consideration is neither violative of Article 21 nor Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. 8. When the petitioner was punished in two departmental enquiries after he was found guilty, that fact cannot be ignored and condition imposed in circular Ann. 3 is on the basis of settlement arrived at between the employer and the employees, cannot be said an arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification has been made to differentiate between the employees who are punished and the employees who are not punished. The classification is reasonable and has nexus with the object. In view of this, I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******