JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have approached this court with the following prayer: (i) to declare that they are entitled to be promoted as Officers Middle Management Grade Scale in accordance with their merit prepared at the time of Selection in pursuance of circular dated Jan. 6, 1988 and are entitled to be so promoted from the date others have been promoted with all consequential benefits. (ii) Circular dated May 27, 1988 seeking to separately categorise the posts in Middle Management Grade Scale II be quashed and in the alternative respondent Bank be directed to give additional vacancies to the Rural Development Officers. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent Bank circulated promotion policy for promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II Two officers from amongst the Rural Development Officers were eligible for seniority channel and the rest in the merit channel. Selection for seniority channel was held first. One of the two officers could not succeed and therefore he was allowed in the merit channel. All the petitioners appeared in the written test and were declared passed and called for interview and merit list was prepared. Grievance of the petitioners is that despite securing high positions in the merit list they were deprived of the promotion. In order to justify the illegality in not promoting all persons on merit the respondent Bank issued circular dated May 27, 1988 seeking to categorise posts of Middle Management Grade Scale II for the erstwhile Rural Development Officers. 3. The respondent Bank in the reply averred that the post of Rural Development Officer belongs to the technical side relating to agriculture. There is no legitimate grievance with the petitioners and there is no question of denial of due promotion in their own specialist cadre. The promotion avenue cannot be equated with the officers of general cadre. There was no common selection but separate selections were held for R.D.O.'s and the officers of the general cadre as there were different sets of question papers for these two categories. If the officers are officiating as Branch Managers/Accountant etc. it does not tantamount to merging into the main stream of general cadre. Even in 1979 after the technical officers (agri.) were promoted from erstwhile grade to grade I they were still designated as Technical Officer (Agri.). If the officers are officiating as Branch Managers/Accountant etc. it does not tantamount to merging into the main stream of general cadre. Even in 1979 after the technical officers (agri.) were promoted from erstwhile grade to grade I they were still designated as Technical Officer (Agri.). Vacancies for the year 1985 were identified separately for general cadre and R.D.O.s. Since the R.D.O.s. were not merged into the main stream of general cadre as they had a different set of question papers, there was no question of having common vacancy. In terms of Regulation 6(1) of the S.B.B.J. (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 the categorisation for the year 1985 for R.D.O.s were approved by the Managing Director. Accordingly the total posts of R.D.O.'s. identified in MMGS II was 30. Since posts had already been filled, the remaining 10 posts were filled in out of the R.D.O.s who were top in the merit list. The R.D.O.s constitute a separate class and merely because their grade is same as that of officers in Junior Management Grade Scale 1 they cannot claim to be Intermingled with the officers belonging to general category. The R.D.O's. have never been merged with the general cadre officers and unless such a merger is brought about by way of calling options form the existing R.D.O.s, the R.D.O.s, in Specialist cadre cannot claim to be treated at par with the general cadre, There were different set of question papers as per the Circular dated January 6, 1988 and for R.D.O.s there were different number of vacancies in M.M.G.S. it and the submission of the petitioners to treat them at par with the general cadre officers is not tenable. The circular dated May 27, 1988 is neither illegal nor arbitrary. No right of any person belonging to the category of R.D.O.s has been frustrated and there is no ulterior motive as alleged. As per categorisation, only posts of R.D.O.s were identified for the year 1985. Since 11 posts fell vacant due to promotion of R.D.O.s only 11 R.D.O.s from JMGS 1 to MMGS II could be promoted. Subsequently, 10 more posts were categorised for the year 1985 and accordingly R.D.O.s who were high in the merit were declared successful and therefore promoted. The circular of categorisation cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scrutinised the material on record. Subsequently, 10 more posts were categorised for the year 1985 and accordingly R.D.O.s who were high in the merit were declared successful and therefore promoted. The circular of categorisation cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scrutinised the material on record. 5. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the appointment orders of each of the petitioners clearly provided that he would be governed by the same service rules applicable to officers Grade II. There cannot be any distinction between Technical officers (agriculture) or officers of the general cadre after the framing of the Regulations by the Bank in the year 1979. Merely because the petitioners had been designated as Technical Officers (Agriculture) would not that they are to be treated differently than any other officer of Grade II. The petitioners are entitled to the same treatment as any other officer of the respondent Bank in the same grade. Consequent upon the framing of the Service Regulations of 1979 there remained only four categories of posts, (a) top executive grade, Scale 7 and Scale 6; (b) senior management grade Scale 5 and Scale 4; (c) middle management grade scale 3 and Scale 2 and (d) junior management grade Scale I. Regulation 6 of the Service Regulations provided that having regard to the responsibilities and functions exercisable, every post of officer in the Bank shall be categorised by the Bank Central Board or the Executive Committee or the Competent Authority as falling in any one of the grades or scales mentioned in Regulation 4, provided that the categorisation of the posts in evidence on the appointed date shall be done before the expiry of two years from that date. Regulation 7 provides that existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in Column-1 of the table given in Schedule 1 to the Regulations shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grades and scales specified there in Column-2 of the Schedule. Regulation 7 provides that existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in Column-1 of the table given in Schedule 1 to the Regulations shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grades and scales specified there in Column-2 of the Schedule. The said regulation did not at all categorise the Technical Officers (Agriculture) who were later on redesigned as Rural Development Officers in a different manner and all those persons whether they were from the general category or from any other specialised category, were appointed either in the Junior Management Grade Scale 1 or in the Middle Management Grade Scale II in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Regulations. Thus, the contention of the respondent Bank that the Technical Officers (Agriculture) were distinct group of officers different from the general cadre of officers is absolutely misconceived, contrary to the Regulations. All officers who had been appointed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I, formed one cadre and could not be treated differently. Reliance has been placed on Punjab State through the Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Medical and Health Deptt. and anr. v. Lekh Raj Bowry and others AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana page 337 , The Employment of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. Indian Dairy Diploma Holders Welfare Association v. Managing Director A.P. Dairy Dev. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Ors. 1988(3) SLR page 588 , Gaya Prasad v. State of Patna 1973(1) SLR page 1 , Dr. Ms. D.Z. Hussain v. Union of India and others AIR 1990 SC 311 , S.M Pandit v. State of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 252 and Roshan Lal Tendon v. Union of India ( AIR 1967 SC 1889 . 6. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Bafna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank supported the reply submitted by the respondent Bank and contended that Technical Officers were a different group of officers different from the general cadre of officers. Even in the seniority list of officers the Technical officers were shown in a different group. All the officers including Specialist Officers were given (illegible) the aforesaid (illegible) circular was issued under Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations of 1979 and it cannot be termed as discriminatory. 7. Even in the seniority list of officers the Technical officers were shown in a different group. All the officers including Specialist Officers were given (illegible) the aforesaid (illegible) circular was issued under Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations of 1979 and it cannot be termed as discriminatory. 7. Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations of 1979 provides thus : "6.(1) Having regard to the responsibilities and functions exercisable, every post of an officer in the Bank shall be categorised by the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the competent authority as failing in any one of the grade or scales mentioned in regulation 4 and such categorisation may be reviewed from time to time by the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the competent authority. Provided that the categorisation of the posts in existence on the appointed date shall be done before the expiry of two years from that date and shall in respect of the posts in the senior management and top executive grades, be done by a committee appointed for the purpose by the Board or the Executive Committee. 8. A look at the impugned Notification dated May 27, 1988 (Annexure-9) demonstrates that it was issued in terms of Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations 1979. The matter of providing of R.D.O.s at the Zonal Offices was considered by the respondent Bank and it was decided that each Zonal Office may be provided with a R.D.O. and correspondingly the strength of R.D.O.s at Head Office be reduced. The Managing Director had approved the categorisation of the additional posts in MMGS II in R.D.O.s cadre at branches and Head Office Department. The respondent Bank had power to categorise the posts in view of Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations 1979. The petitioners were not denied promotion in their own Specialist Cadre. I am satisfied that Circular dated May 27, 1988 seeking to separately categorise the post in MMGS II cannot be termed as arbitrary and discriminatory. 9. In Gaya Prasad v. State of Bihar and others (supra), it was indicated that if the authority commits any mistake in preparing the seniority list and it is not found in accordance with the rules, the mistake can be corrected.But in the instant case no rule was flouted by the respondent Bank. 10. 9. In Gaya Prasad v. State of Bihar and others (supra), it was indicated that if the authority commits any mistake in preparing the seniority list and it is not found in accordance with the rules, the mistake can be corrected.But in the instant case no rule was flouted by the respondent Bank. 10. In S.M. Pandit and others v. State of Gujarat (supra) this contention was accepted that both the directly recruited Mamlatdars and promotee Mamlatdars form one class and under those circumstances it was held that it was not competent for the Government to discriminate between the directly recruited Mamlatdars and promotee Mamlatdars in the matter of their further promotion. 11. In Roshan Lal Tendon v. Union of India (supra) the main question to be considered was as to whether the Notification was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in so far as it makes a discrimination in respect of promotion of direct recruits and promotees in one cadre. It was held that no discrimination's can be made for future promotions. Portion of Notification which gave favourable treatment to direct recruits in regard to promotion was held violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 12. In Dr. Ms. D.Z. Hussain v. Union of India and others (supra) their to Lordships of the Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of Union of India to frame set of appropriate rules providing suitable promotional avenues to Scientists Group A as was available to similarly placed Scientist in other Ministries. But in the instant case the promotion avenues cannot be equated with the officers of General Cadre with that of Specialist Cadre. 13. In Employment of A.P. Dairy v. M.D. A.P. Dairy A.P. (supra) list of degree holders and diploma holders forming part of Managers Grade li was maintained by the Federation only for the purpose of giving effect to the rule of quota and not for any different purpose. In the matter of discharging functions the degree holders as well as the diploma holders were treated alike and their service conditions were alike. Under those circumstances it was held that once the fitment into the category takes place they form one class for further promotion. 14. In the matter of discharging functions the degree holders as well as the diploma holders were treated alike and their service conditions were alike. Under those circumstances it was held that once the fitment into the category takes place they form one class for further promotion. 14. In Punjab State v. Lekh Ram (supra) it was indicated that an executive order placing some members of a unified cadre in a higher scale of pay as against other members of the same cadre, on the ground that those favoured were better qualified, is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 16 to those members of the initially same cadre who have been prejudicial affected by such a direction. Ratio of this authority is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case because Notification dated May 27, 1988 is not an executive order but is an order issued in terms of Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations 1979. 15. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by Mr. Kamlaker Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The contention of the respondent Bank that the Technical Officers (Agri.) were distinct group of officers different from the general cadre of officers, cannot be termed as misconceived or contrary to the Regulations of 1979. All officers who had been appointed on the Junior Management Grade Scale I formed one cadre and can be treated differently. Alternative prayer of seeking a direction to respondent Bank to give additional vacancies to the Rural Development Officers can not be accepted. The Rural Development Officers constitute a separate class and merely because their grade is same as that of officers in Junior Management Grade Scale they cannot be intermingled with the officers in general category. 16. For the reasons indicated here-in-above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******