JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.—As a singular order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the backdrop of the common set of facts and question of law in two writ petitions being W.P. No. 5317/1997 and W.P. No. 4304/96, the aggrieved parties have preferred these two Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. As the learned Single Judge has adverted to the factual matrix in W.P. No. 5317/97 which is the subject-matter of challenge in L.P. A. No. 161/99, for the sake of clarity and convenience, we will deal with the said appeal and refer to the fact situation in the relevant writ petition which has given rise to the aforesaid appeal. 2. In W.P. No. 5317/97 the petitioner No. 1 is Indore Bank Krishi Visheshagya Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association') and petitioner No. 2 is an agriculture assistant. The said Association is registered under the Firms and Societies Registrikaran Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). The aims and objects of the Association are to look after the interest of the agricultural assistants and other persons who are its members. The members of the said Association claim to be the agricultural assistants having been so appointed during the period 1982 to 1990. They approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents therein to consider the members of the petitioner No. 1- Association for promotion to the post of Rural Development Officer/Technical Officer (Agriculture) with all consequential benefits. There was a further prayer for quashment of the Circular dated 15-10-1990, Annexure-P-16, to the said writ petition. 3. According to the writ petitioners they were employed as Agriculture Assistants with the respondent/Bank and the persons who were appointed during the period 1982-1990 are working in the same post and never had chance of any promotion till date. They asseverated that at the time of their appointment a separate policy existed for their career development according to which they were promoted to the next higher post on completion of five years of service. The said post was known as Technical Officer (Agriculture). The post of Agriculture Assistant is the lowest post in the Banking rung and the next higher post is that of Technical Officer (Agriculture). The said post was known as Technical Officer (Agriculture). The post of Agriculture Assistant is the lowest post in the Banking rung and the next higher post is that of Technical Officer (Agriculture). It was putforth by the petitioners that on consideration of technical nature of work which the petitioners performed and taking stock of their special qualifications, separate promotional avenue was provided to the Agriculture Assistants to the post of Technical Officer (Agriculture). Agriculture Assistants are required to possess five years experience in agriculture lending and it is their claim that some of them have already completed the period way back in the year 1987-88, but they were not afforded an opportunity for consideration on promotion. It was the grievance before the learned Single Judge that all other staffs were regularly considered for promotion to their next higher cadre in terms of the policy but by virtue of the impugned circular dated 15-10-1990 the respondent-Bank denied the promotion to the Agriculture Assistants as Rural Development Officer. 4. The stance putforth by the petitioners was resisted by the contesting respondents contending, inter alia, that the last of the agriculture graduate clerks/Agriculture Assistants belonging to the specialist cadre were promoted as Technical Officer (Agriculture) in the year 1980. Thereafter, no appointment was made and the specialist cadre came to an end. According to the respondents the claim of the petitioners that they belong to some technical/specialist cadre of Agriculture Assistant is unfounded on facts and, therefore, prayer in regard to the claim is a figment of their imagination. It is further putforth by the respondents that from the year 1982 the respondent-Bank recruiting clerks holding qualification of degree or diploma in Agriculture in Bank's clerk and such clerks were designated as Agriculture Assistants and they were given special allowance but they cannot be said to have been appointed to any specialist/technical cadre as setforth by them. 5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners are performing the specialised function and they are Agriculture graduates and in view of their qualification and the nature of duty performed by them, they have to be treated as a member of specialised/technical cadre. 5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners are performing the specialised function and they are Agriculture graduates and in view of their qualification and the nature of duty performed by them, they have to be treated as a member of specialised/technical cadre. The said stand was combated by the learned counsel for the Bank highlighting that the cadre of an employee is not decided on the basis of the qualification or nature of work performed by him but it depends upon the factum to which cadre he had been appointed. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Bank on the letter of appointment issued in favour of one Ramesh Kumar Verma in which it was mentioned that he was appointed in the clerical cadre as an Agriculture Assistant. Appointment letters of petitioner No. 3, Trilok Singh, and petitioner No. 4 are also in similar terms. 6. The learned Single Judge took note of the plea in paragraph 5.5 of the writ petition which according to him was vague and came to hold that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners therein that the qualification and nature of work included the petitioners in a different cadre was of no substance, more so, in view of the letter of appointments. It was also contented before the learned Single Judge that by introduction of the impugned promotion policy, Annexure-P-16 to the writ petition, the promotional prospects of the petitioners had been totally curtailed. It was also putforth that merger of the specialised cadre of Agriculture Assistant in the general cadre by the Bank was not a correct move inasmuch as other Banks, namely, Bank of India, Central Bank of India and Dena Bank have not yet discontinued the same. The learned Single Judge did not accept the same on the ground that merger or discontinuance of a cadre is exclusively within the domain of the employer and the same is not subject to judicial review in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge did not accept the same on the ground that merger or discontinuance of a cadre is exclusively within the domain of the employer and the same is not subject to judicial review in a writ petition. It is appropriate to state here that the learned Single Judge was addressed with regard to the stagnation of promotional prospects and the decision rendered in the case of AIR 1988 1033 (SC) was commended to him and the learned Single Judge distinguished the same on the ground that Agriculture Assistants who belong to general clerical cadre have all promotion opportunity and many of them have been promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale I. It was putforth by the respondents that during the period 1990-1997, 20 Agriculture Assistants have availed the opportunity of promotion and 7 out of them have been promoted to the post of J.M. G.S. -I. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association appeared in the written test/interview for promotion from the general clerical cadre during the period 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 but was unsuccessful. In view of the aforesaid analysis the learned Single Judge did not accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition, 7. Assailing the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, being assisted by Mr. P. Dharmadhikari that by virtue of circular/policy dated 15-10-1990 the existing promotional policy for Agriculture Assistants has been discontinued and the promotional opportunity to the general officer cadre will be open to them on the lines of general clerical cadre staff which is not correct. It is urged by him that the appellants should be allowed to be governed on the basis of the agreement dated 15-1-1975. It is his further submission that the petitioners were entitled to be promoted to the higher post of Technical Officer (Agriculture) on completion of five years as such policy was arrived by bipartite agreement and the same cannot be throttled by introducing the circular as has been done in the case at hand. It is further canvassed by him that the petitioners are performing the technical nature of work and they are to be governed by the policy applicable to special staff. It is further canvassed by him that the petitioners are performing the technical nature of work and they are to be governed by the policy applicable to special staff. It is also canvassed by him that the learned Single Judge has erred in law by not taking into consideration that the effect of bipartite agreement cannot be nullified by introducing a promotional policy contrary to the said agreement. The learned senior counsel further argued that the Annexure-P-2 is a settlement u/s 18(1) and section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said settlement has the statutory force and, therefore, the promotional policy which is absolutely arbitrary and unjust could not have been introduced when the settlement was in vogue. The learned counsel has contended that the merger of cadre, namely, specialised cadre of Agriculture Assistant with the general cadre is absolutely illegal and that can never be within the absolute domain of the employer as it creates immense injustice. 8. It is apposite to mention here that a detailed written note has been filed by the appellants and therein, apart from the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal, it is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the plea in proper perspective. It is also urged that the respondent Bank itself had treated the appellants as a distinct class. It is also highlighted that the learned Single Judge has been swayed away by the caption in the letter of appointment "Clerical Grade Recruitment", though that is not the decisive factor in regard to nature of appointment. It has also been highlighted that the duties and functions are to be taken into consideration and not the letter of appointment. Emphasis has also been given on Annexure-P2, the settlement-Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Shri Hari Har Nath Bhargava, , E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha, , Secy. Finance Department and others vs, W.B. Registration Service Assn. and ors., 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153, S.K. Maini Vs. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, , S.P. Shivprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India and Others, and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation and Another . 9. Mr. Dayanand Jha, , Secy. Finance Department and others vs, W.B. Registration Service Assn. and ors., 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153, S.K. Maini Vs. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, , S.P. Shivprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India and Others, and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation and Another . 9. Mr. S.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, has contended that the submission of learned counsel is based on misconception as the Agriculture graduates/Agriculture Assistants cadre stood abolished and merged with the general banking cadre during the period 1978-79 and several agreements with the representative trade union came into existence as per Annexures A-1 to A-6. Last one came into force in the year 1980 as a consequence of which no appointments were made to this specialised cadre and the cadre became extinct. Learned counsel has submitted that with effect from 1-10-90 position of Agricultural Assistants being part of clerical cadre of the Bank is governed by awards and bipartite settlements prevailing from time to time by which their posts are allowed to carry certain special allowances. Mr. Rao has putforth that the promotion prospects of the members of the petitioner's Association as well as the petitioner have not been totally curtailed and, in fact, as many as 20 Agriculture Assistants have availed opportunity of promotion to the officers' cadre JMGS-I during the period 1990-1997. At this juncture, to plead that they belong to a special cadre and their promotional channel should be different, would amount to turning the apple cart and make the entire situation absolutely topsy-turvy. Mr. Rao has urged with vehemence that the Secretary of the appellant No. 1 Association appeared in the promotional examination during the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 but he became unsuccessful. It is also highlighted by him that appellants are very much aware about their status yet they have filed the writ petitions which have been correctly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Rao has also submitted that Annexure-P-16 was issued on 15-10-90 but the same was called in question in the year 1997 after expiry of seven years, and hence the appeals deserve to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. It is further contended by Mr. Mr. Rao has also submitted that Annexure-P-16 was issued on 15-10-90 but the same was called in question in the year 1997 after expiry of seven years, and hence the appeals deserve to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. It is further contended by Mr. Rao that the employer has the right to amalgamate the cadres and once there has been merger and the same has come to stay for such a long time the same cannot be changed. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has also filed a note of citations. He has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of V.T. Khanzode and Others Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Another, , State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, , B. Krishanamaurthy vs. Chairman, Meidras Port Trust, 1996 (2) LJJ 1245, All India State Bank Officers' Federation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , L. Muthukumar and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , Kulvinder Singh vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank, 2000 (iii) LLJ 1331 and Notified Area Pipili vs.Gahar Mohammad and another, 2001 Lab.I.C. 2389. 10. To appreciate the submissions raised by the rival parties before us we have bestowed our thoughtful consideration and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. To appreciate the scenario in proper perspective we think it apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the circular dated 15-10-90, Annecure-P-16 to the writ petition. The same reads as under:- PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR AGRI. ASSTTS: With the reduction in the intake of RDOs the present system of promotion for Agri. Assts. to RDOs/Trainee RDO cadre shall be discontinued. However, promotional opportunity to JMGS-I through the channel of Trainee Officers and regular seniority-cum-merit channels will be open to such employee as per the eligibility criteria stipulated for clerical cadre staff. In cadre promotional opportunities will be open for them on the lines available to general clerical cadre staff. 11. It is worth noting here that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the notion harboured by the petitioners, the appellants before us, is that they belong to technical/specialised cadre is a misconception. In cadre promotional opportunities will be open for them on the lines available to general clerical cadre staff. 11. It is worth noting here that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the notion harboured by the petitioners, the appellants before us, is that they belong to technical/specialised cadre is a misconception. The learned Single Judge has ascribed reasons for the same highlighting that the cadre of an employee is not to be decided on the basis of qualification or nature of work performed by him but it would depend upon to which post he has been appointed. The concept of specialised cadre Agricultural Assistant as an independent cadre has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has commended us to certain decisions which we have indicated hereinbefore. 12. In the case of E.P. Royappa (supra) their Lordships held as under:- 83.......The status and responsibility of a non-cadre post for the purpose of determining equivalence cannot depend on who is going to occupy it. It is really the other way round. The equivalence in status and responsibility determined on an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post should decide which officer should occupy it. 13. In the case of Hariharnath Bhargava (supra) the Apex Court ruled thus:- Designation of the employee is not decisive of the status of the employee, but the nature of the duties and functions assigned to the employee would determine the status of the employee. 14. In the case of W.B. Registration Service Association (supra) their Lordships of the Apex Court enumerated the factors which may be kept in view for job evaluation. We quote with profit: - 12.......The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales lo a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g. (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the heirarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc........ 15. In the case of Dayanand Jha (supra) the Apex Court ruled thus: - The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts. 16. In the case of S.K. Maini (supra) in paragraph 9 the Apex Court stated thus:- Whether or not an employee is a workman u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is required to do more than one kind of work it becomes necessary to determine under which classification u/s 2(s) the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. The designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. The designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory work. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small faction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Quite apart from the aforesaid decisions the learned senior counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision which deals with the legitimate expectation. The doctrine of legitimate expectation within its conspectus encapsules the fair dealing with a person, availability of reasonable opportunities and further the authority is not entitled in law to defeat a person's legitimate expectation without providing an opportunity of hearing. If the citation commended to us by the learned counsel for the appellant are appreciated in proper perspective three aspects emerge, namely, (i) it is the nature of the post, the responsibility and power exercised determine the nature of his job; (ii) the designation of an employee is not the sole decisive factor to compartmentalize him; and (iii) if a person has legitimate expectation to climb in the ladder of promotion that cannot be curtailed or curbed in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on certain decisions. Out of which we will refer to a few. Mr. Rao has submitted that the circular had come into effect in the year 1990 and there was a merger of cadre but the petitioner-Association approached this Court in the year 1997 and, therefore, the writ petition is not to be dealt with on merits as the concept of delay and laches shatters the marrow of the controversy as a series of things happened during this long period. 19. 19. In the case of L. Muthukumar (supra) the Apex Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 took note of the delay of six years and held that the High Court was correct in not issuing the writ of mandamus after six years. It is also noticeable that after the merger of cadre number of employees of the petitioner's Association had been promoted in accordance with the circular and they have accepted the promotion. It has also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge that the Secretary of the petitioner's Association appeared in the year 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 and became unsuccessful and thereafter the writ petition was filed. Failure at one juncture has been the guiding and persuasive factor for filing of this writ petition. From the aforesaid it rings as a bell that when the failure came on the way of the protagonists they visited the Court seeking redressal of their grievance. In view of this factual context, it can be said with certitude that the petitioners have really not approached this Court with clean hands and have taken the path of deviation to frustrate the merger of cadre and the policy decision taken by the Department and such an Act the law does not appreciate and never does countenance. 20. In this context we may also profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of All India State Bank Officer's Federation (supra) wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 23 held as under:- There is nothing wrong if the Bank devised a policy defining the eligibility norms on a realistic basis and devised a system whereby the best available talent would be chosen to man the critical positions. Keeping this objective in view the changes in the promotion policy have been made. It is always for the employer to see how to promote and utilise the best talent available in the organisation. The promotion policy originally framed in the year 1975 has been amended from time to time. The changes have now been made in 1989 keeping in mind the requirement of the Bank and based on the experience of the Bank in regard to making selection for promotion. The changes so made cannot be regarded as arbitrary and the Court cannot sit in appeal and decide as to what is good for the institution. The changes have now been made in 1989 keeping in mind the requirement of the Bank and based on the experience of the Bank in regard to making selection for promotion. The changes so made cannot be regarded as arbitrary and the Court cannot sit in appeal and decide as to what is good for the institution. Under the new policy the petitioners are also eligible for consideration and they cannot have any grievance because certain persons who were eligible under the old policy, but in practice were not considered for promotion, are now considered under the new policy. The object of the new policy is not only to redress the injustice to those officers resulting on account of the difference between the rules and the practice but also with the object of selecting the best talent for the top executive posts. 21. In this regard it is worth noting to refer to the decision rendered in the case of V. T. Khanzode (supra) wherein in paragraph 40 the Apex Court held as under:- Private interest of employees of public undertakings cannot override public interest and an effort has to be made to harmonize the two considerations. No scheme governing service matters can be foolproof and some section or the other of employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the score of its expectations being falsified or remaining to be fulfilled. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fides will of course render any scheme unconstitutional but the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the expectations of every employee is not evidence of these. Vested interests are prone to hold on to their acquisitions. Their Lordships further proceeded to lay down as under:- Whether there should be a combined seniority in different cadres or groups is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. The group system has been a continuous process of trial and error and the impugned scheme of inter-group mobility emerged as the most acceptable solution as a matter of administrative, historical and functional necessity. Combined seniority has been recommended by two special committees and there is no justification for undoing what those committees achieved after an objective and integral examination of the whole issue. (Quoted from placitum) 22. Combined seniority has been recommended by two special committees and there is no justification for undoing what those committees achieved after an objective and integral examination of the whole issue. (Quoted from placitum) 22. In this regard it is noteworthy to mention here that in the case of J.P. Chaurasia (supra) their Lordships observed that factors justifying difference in parity of employment depends on evaluation of duties and responsibilities and besides quantity, quality is also material. Their Lordships expressed the view that the Courts are not suited to evaluate and compare on the basis of affidavits and pleadings and the matter should be left to the executive who should appoint an expert body for the purpose. 23. From the aforesaid enunciation and exposition of law there remains no trace of doubt that the employer has the authority in its wisdom to take steps for merger or discontinuance of cadres unless same is done with an ulterior motive, smacks of arbitrariness and is totally unreasonable. In the case at hand we do not so perceive. 24. The case of Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra) was rendered in a different context. In the said case the Apex Court observed that in absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. The Apex Court accordingly directed the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation. In the case at hand the Agricultural Assistants who belong to general cadre have all the promotional opportunities and, in fact, many of them have availed the same and have been promoted to the post of Junior Manager Grade Scale-I. It has been putforth in the return that 20 Agricultural Assistants have availed the opportunity for promotion to the post of Officer Grade during the period 1990-97 and 7 out of them have, in fact, been promoted. We have already indicated that Secretary of the petitioner's Association had availed the opportunity but did not succeed. To overcome his failure in the said sphere, the Association has visited this Court after seven years assailing the policy. 25. We have already indicated that Secretary of the petitioner's Association had availed the opportunity but did not succeed. To overcome his failure in the said sphere, the Association has visited this Court after seven years assailing the policy. 25. Judging from the following angles, namely, (i) that there has been delay and laches in approaching the writ Court; (ii) that there being a merger of both the cadres that founded on a rational base; (iii) that promotional prospects being available to the members of the Association and there being no stagnation; (iv) that some of the persons who were eligible have taken recourse to the procedure laid down under the policy to obtain promotion and some of them have been promoted; and (v) that the Secretary of the Association having made efforts on four occasions and having failed therein has approached this Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has taken the correct view and we unhesitatingly concur with the same, as it is impeccable and presentable. 26. Consequently, the appeals, being sans substance, stand dismissed without any order to costs. Final Result : Dismissed