Judgment 1. The main prayer in the above writ petitions is whether Clause 7 (iii) of the State Bank of Travancore Voluntary Retirement Scheme, hereinafter referred to as 'SBT VRS', is binding on those employees of the Bank, who voluntarily retired from service under the Scheme. The State Bank of Travancore floated a voluntary retirement scheme and as per the said scheme, the persons who have opted VRS are not entitled to the benefits under Section 29(5) of the State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, which says that the qualifying service of an employee, retiring voluntarily, shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the Pension Regulations are framed under sub-section 1 of Clause (O) of sub section (2) of Section 63 of the SBI (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 and therefore statutory in nature. The terms of the contract between the bank and the employees, contrary to the statutory rule contained in Section 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, is void and inoperative. Therefore, Clause 7(iii) of SBT VRS cannot be enforced against the employees. 3. It is further contended that, in view of the operation of Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, the terms of a contract, to the extent that it is contrary to law, is void. Clause 7(iii) of SBT VRS cannot be enforced against the employees, for the reason that, it is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. SBT is an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, going by the well settled principle of law, even the terms of the contract can be declared as void and inoperative, if such terms are arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. 4. The case of the respondent Bank is that, the acceptance of voluntary retirement under the SBT VRS is a contract between the bank and the employees and the employees, who voluntarily entered into such a contract, cannot later resile from the terms of such contract and say that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 29(5) of the Pension Regulations. 5. The further case of the respondent bank is that, the bank floated the scheme of voluntary retirement on 1.2.2001 and the date of closure of operation of SBT VRS was on 15.2.2001. 5. The further case of the respondent bank is that, the bank floated the scheme of voluntary retirement on 1.2.2001 and the date of closure of operation of SBT VRS was on 15.2.2001. The last date for withdrawal of application from the scheme was 28.2.2001 and the date of retirement under the scheme was 31.3.2001. Petitioners claim benefit under Regulation 29(5) in February, 2002. The bank rejected the claim on the sole ground that the scheme was operated and the petitioners, having voluntarily opted for that and applied under the scheme, cannot resile at this belated stage. It is the further case of the respondent bank that, the scheme was in operation provided for various benefits, including pension in terms of SBI Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. The scheme was floated by the bank in pursuance to the letter from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India in May, 2000 advising the bank to undertake manpower planning on priority basis, as it was of the view that the banks had surplus manpower. Pursuant to the above communication and subsequent instructions issued by the Union Government, the Indian Banks Association circulated a draft voluntary retirement scheme for consideration and adoption by nationalized banks and invited objections. 6. State Bank of Travancore is an associate bank of the State Bank of India and it is constituted under Section 3 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. Section 24 of the said Act empower the State Bank of India to give directions and instructions to an associate bank in regard to any of the affairs and business and the associate bank is bound to comply with such directions and instructions. 7. Section 63(2) (O) of the State Bank of India Subsidiary Act, 1959 empower the State Bank of India to make regulations for establishment of pension fund and for payment of pension to employees of subsidiary banks. The State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which govern payment of pension to employees/departments of employees had been notified in the official gazette dated 23.3.1996. The State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which govern payment of pension to employees/departments of employees had been notified in the official gazette dated 23.3.1996. The benefit of increased qualifying service, as provided under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation, 1995, will not be applicable to the petitioners, because, the petitioners had applied under the scheme after being fully aware that they will not get any benefit of extended service under Clause 29(5), to which they have conveyed their consent to the exclusion of extended service under Clause 29(5) and had given an undertaking that they will have no further claim or rights on the bank, except the benefits and payments under the scheme, copy of which is marked as Annexure-C. The petitioners are bound by their own undertaking. In view of the rival contentions of the petitioners and the respondent, the questions involved in this case is: a) Whether Clause 7(iii) of the SBT VRS is binding on those employees of the State Bank of India, who are voluntarily retired from service under the above scheme; b) Whether clause 7(iii) is void contrary to the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act; and c) Whether Clause 7(iii) is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned senior counsel Smt.Sumathi Dandapani appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that, this case is covered by the decision in Bank of India v. K.Mohandas ( 2009 (5) S.C.C. 313 ) and further contended that Clause 7 (iii) of SBT VRS cannot be enforced against the employees for the reason that, it is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the pension accrued to an employee is a property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution. Therefore, the person cannot be deprived of his pension without authority of law, which would amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that, in view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single objective is unlawful, the agreement is void. It was further contended that, in view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single objective is unlawful, the agreement is void. Therefore, exclusion of Section 29(5) from the ambit of the scheme, is contrary to statutory provisions and hence it is void and inoperative. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri.P.Ramakrishnan contended that the judgment reported in Bank of India's case (supra) is distinguishable due to the reason that the Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 is made under Section 19 (2)(f) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 & 1980 and Clause 29 of the Regulation deals with pension on voluntary retirement of employees who have completed twenty years of qualifying service. As per Clause 29(5) of the above said Regulation, the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under the Regulations shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that, the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. 10. The Bank of India introduced the clause to the effect that Clause 29(5) will not be available to the applicant of Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme only one day before the closure of the scheme, that is, 13.12.2000 and the Bank of India employees filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the circular dated 13.12.2000 wherein they contended that refusal on the part of bank to count the earlier service rendered by them under Parur Central Bank is unconstitutional. This Court in Mohandas v. State Bank of India (ILR 2005(3) Kerala 476) held that subsequent exclusion of the benefit of qualifying service under Clause 29(5) is bad in law. Similarly, Union of India has floated a scheme which was set aside by different High Courts and the Apex Court. It is only on these circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court was rendered in which it was held that the benefit accrued to an employee, which was otherwise available, cannot be taken away by a subsequent notification. Similarly, Union of India has floated a scheme which was set aside by different High Courts and the Apex Court. It is only on these circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court was rendered in which it was held that the benefit accrued to an employee, which was otherwise available, cannot be taken away by a subsequent notification. But, in case of SBT, which is an associate of the State Bank of India constituted under Section 3 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, is completely different. The Bank has floated the scheme right from the inception and there was no subsequent amendment to the Scheme and in the scheme itself there was specification as to the last date of application as well as last date of withdrawal. With the eyes open, the employees of the bank has accepted the aforesaid terms. Therefore, they cannot wriggle out of the undertaking given to the bank. The employees, having accepted all the emoluments flowing from the scheme, which is much more than the benefits available to a normal employee, who is retiring on the date of superannuation, cannot turn around and file writ petition at a belated stage challenging the scheme itself which they have voluntarily opted. 11. Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Viiava Bank v. Suvasini S.Chettv (W.A.No.4269/2011) submits that the statutory right vested on the employees cannot be taken away by an executive order which is detrimental to the interest of the employees. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "This conglomeration of appeals challenge the judgment dated 8.4.2011 pronounced by learned single Judge (Anand Byrareddy J.) concerning the claim of serveral erstwhile employees of the appellant banks who had availed of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) offered to them by the employer banks vide Circular dated 15.12.2000. The writ petitions are substantially similar in content in as much as the prayers therein are to quash the sundry circulars which attempt to amend Regulation 29(5) of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 ('Pension Regulations 1995' for brevity) and thereby deprive them of the benefit of an addition of five years to their respective 'qualifying service' and secondly, for computing the pension in accordance with Regulation 38 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, i.e., predicating the computation on the average emoluments drawn in the preceding ten months of their service. The admitted factual position in these batch of appeals is that each of the employees had completed 20 years of service. The employees of the various banks who opted for retirement under the Scheme have been given retiral benefits except the benefit of Regulations under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It deals with addition of a period of qualifying service rendered by an employee not exceeding 33 years. In other words, employees sought for addition of notional five years of service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of scheme as per Regulations 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. After submission of applications for voluntary retirement scheme by the employees, the bank issued circulars communicating proposed amendment of Regulation 28 of Pension Regulations. Subsequently, the circulars were issued amending Regulation 29 of Pension Regulations, 1995. On account of the said amendments, the Bank sought to deny the benefit of addition of five years qualifying service to the employees. The banks had the benefit of revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1997. However, in the memo of settlement, it was stated that pay for the purpose of pension shall be the aggregate of the pre-revised pay and dearness allowance thereon at consumer Price Index 1616 points. This should be relevant to the provisions made in the Pension Regulations. It is the case of the petitioners that the Pension Regulations were not amended as on the date of their retirement and was so amended subsequently and in the case of State Bank of Mysore, the Pension Regulations have not been amended at all to bring it in line with the settlement or the joint note. Therefore, the case of the Bank employee is that the reliance placed on pre-revised pay scales for the purpose of pension is illegal. Mohandas, makes mention of the maxim contra proferentem which rule, if applied in the case in hand, would enjoin us to give the benefit of any doubt to the petitioners in case ambiguity is encountered. The Rule is of long standing origin and is applicable, if two interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the party, who has drafted the contract and the other against him. In that case, the interpretation against that party has to be preferred. The Rule is of long standing origin and is applicable, if two interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the party, who has drafted the contract and the other against him. In that case, the interpretation against that party has to be preferred. This is predicated on the principle that all deeds are to be construed most strongly against the grantor and in favour of the grantee. In other words, a covenant though has to be construed according to the intent of the parties, yet have to be taken most strongly against the party who stipulates. It is also a settled rule, that, where there is a grant and an exception out of it, the exception has to be taken as inserted for the benefit of the grantor, and to be construed in favour of the grantee. Further, the general rule is that where there is any doubt as to the construction of any stipulation in a contract, one has to be construed strictly against the party in whose favour it has been made. An inference adverse to the appellant Banks would have to be drawn since it was the latter who have drafted the voluntary retirement scheme and the paperwork attendant thereto. The petitioners had merely responded to the Bank's invitation to respond to the voluntary retirement conceptualized by it. The petitioners made an offer to voluntarily retire from service on the terms devised and spelt out by the Bank by filling and forwarding the standard form application crafted by the Banks. Interestingly, whilst the captioned subject bore a reference to the voluntary retirement from service under Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 communicated vide Circular No.231/2000 dated 23.11.2000 the 4th paragraph of the Application states — "I have opted for pension under the Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995". The same format is common to all Banks, save for the change of the name of the employer. The same format is common to all Banks, save for the change of the name of the employer. Significantly, the succeeding paragraph 5 of that very application states — "I also seek voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and request the competent authority to waive the requisite notice of three months for seeking voluntary retirement under the said Regulations In these premises it is legally impermissible and untenable for the appellant banks to accept this "irrevocable and unconditional application seeking voluntary retirement" and nonethless invoke a subsequent circular of its own making and initiative, the terms of which are detrimental to the petitioner's interests. As already commented upon by the Supreme Court, the Banks were apparently astounded by the overwhelming response to the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and as a consequence, were desirous of diluting the terms contained in their invitation to offer. The entire process should have commenced once again if new terms were to be placed in substitution of the initial ones. It is certainly conceivable that the petitioners would not have applied for VRS on the newly offered terms; this inference can be drawn from the manifestly lukewarm response to the then extant VRS. In other words, under the Indian Contract Act or purely on equitable ground it would be unfair and legally inconceivable to hold the petitioners thereafter to retire since the terms and initiative had been varied and departed from at the instance of the appellant banks. We think it is the banks which are guilty of approbation and reprobation. In this analysis and in view of the dictum of the constitutional Bench referred to above and the Four Judge Bench, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals are devoid altogether of any merit. We respectfully reiterate that, as it has been hold in Mohandas, the officers who had availed of VRS 2000 were entitled to an addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service, as contemplated in the Service Regulations, 1995. These officers/petitioners are not estopped from availing the benefits contained in the Pension Regulations, 1995, in spite of availing the benefit of ex gratia payment and better pay scales contained in the joint note dated 14.12.1999. These officers/petitioners are not estopped from availing the benefits contained in the Pension Regulations, 1995, in spite of availing the benefit of ex gratia payment and better pay scales contained in the joint note dated 14.12.1999. We affirm the view of both the learned Single Judges, as the controversy stands concluded by the dictum of the Apex Court in Mohandas and therefore, there is no concundrum that has emerged calling for any further consideration by this Court." 12. Learned counsel also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.Mohandas v. Bank of India (W.A.No. 1640/2002) wherein similar view has been taken. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri.P.Ramakrishnan developing his submission submits that Clause 7(3) of the SBT VRS is binding on those employee of the bank who voluntarily retired from service under the above scheme and they are not entitled to the benefit under Section 29(5) of the SBT Employees Pension Regulations, 1965 which states that the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years. This statutory right, according to him, the employees have voluntarily abandoned while accepting the terms of VRS. The format of voluntary retirement application is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "SBT VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME (SBTVRS) I, Mathew Paul, son/daughter/wife of Shri/Smt.P.P.Poulose hereby apply for permission to retire from Bank's services in terms of the provisions of SBT Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBTVRS). I have perused the provisions of SBTVRS carefully and consciously and understood them. My decision to retire from Bank's service under the Scheme is voluntary. I undertake to abide by the terms and conditions of SBTVRS unconditionally and irrevocably. I also enclose my applications for Provident Fund /Pension/Gratuity/Leave encashment that may please be forwarded to the appropriate authorities, in case Bank accedes to my request for voluntary retirement under SBTVRS and if I am otherwise eligible for these benefits. I furnish below the required particulars. i) xxx ii) xxx iii) xxx iv) xxxx v) xxx vi) xxxx vii) xxx ix) xxx x) xxx xi) xxx xii) xxx xiii) xxx xiv) xxx xv) xxx xvi) xxx xvii) xxx xviii) xxx xix) xxx xx) xxx xxi) xxx xxii) xxx xxiii) Assignments held in the last 5 years: 1. xx 2. xx 3. xx 4. xx 5. i) xxx ii) xxx iii) xxx iv) xxxx v) xxx vi) xxxx vii) xxx ix) xxx x) xxx xi) xxx xii) xxx xiii) xxx xiv) xxx xv) xxx xvi) xxx xvii) xxx xviii) xxx xix) xxx xx) xxx xxi) xxx xxii) xxx xxiii) Assignments held in the last 5 years: 1. xx 2. xx 3. xx 4. xx 5. xx 1.1 declare that I have not availed of the benefit of any of the Vountary Retirement Scheme in the past, in any organisation, before joining the Bank. 2. In the event of Bank acceding to my request for voluntary retirement under SBTVRS, I undertake to liquidate all loans/advances granted to me (with the exception of those loans which can be continued at the discretion of the Bank as per instructions in force), before the effective date of my retirement under SBTVRS. In the event of my failure to do so, I authorise the Bank to appropriate the dues payable to me by the Bank towards the liquidation of these loans/advances. I further declare that such appropriation would be deemed as valid discharge of Bank's obligations, to that extent. 3. In the event of the Bank acceding to my request for voluntary retirement under SBTVRS, I undertake to vacate the residential accommodation, surrender the vehicle, the telephone and other facilities provided to me immediately, unless permitted by competent authority in terms of existing rules. 4. I am aware that the acceptance or rejection of my request for Voluntary Retirement under SBTVRS is at the absolute discretion of the Bank. 5.1 am aware that no voluntary retirement under SBTVRS shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the competent authority as to the acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement has been communicated in writing and I have been relieved from my duties to the satisfaction of the Bank. 6. I undertake that on account of my retirement from the Bank under the SBTVRS, I will have no further claims and/or rights on the Bank except for the payment of benefit under SBTVRS, I also undertake not to raise any claim relating to interest, in respect of either the cash payment or the payment through Bonds. 7. The benefit of increased service as provided for under Regulation 29(5) of SBT Pension Regulations. 1995 will not be available to employees who opt for retirement under SBTVRS scheme. 7. The benefit of increased service as provided for under Regulation 29(5) of SBT Pension Regulations. 1995 will not be available to employees who opt for retirement under SBTVRS scheme. I hereby convey my consent for the same, (emphasis supplied) 8. I undertake that on account of my voluntary retirement from the Bank under SBTVRS, I have no right to claim for compassionate appointment. 9. I am aware that in case of dispute as to the interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of the scheme, the decision of the Bank shall be final and binding on me. 10. I agree that the Bank has right to modify, amend or cancel any or all of the clauses of the Scheme and to give effect thereto from any date Bank may deem fit. 11. I declare that no case/action has been initiated against me by Government Agencies/Law enforcing agencies. 12. I declare that the particulars/information furnished herein above are true and correct. Further, I am aware, should any of these particulars/information turn out to be incorrect/false. I am liable to be declared ineligible under the Scheme, without prejudice to Bank's other rights in this regard." 13. Clause 7, according to Sri.Ramakrishnan, deals with voluntary abandonment of the rights, if any, and with eyes open, the employees, having agreed not to take any benefit flowing from Section 29(5) of the SBT Pension Regulations, 1995, now cannot turn around/resile and claim the same on the ground that it will be taken away, being a statutory right. He has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court found as follows: "In Bank of India v. OP Swarnakar ( 2003 (2) SCC 721 ) the Honourable Court held as follows: 114. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex-gratia payment. Those who accepted ex-gratia payment. Those who accepted ex-gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme, in our considered opinion could not have resiled therefrom. 115. The Scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. In A. K. Bindal v. Union of India (AIR2003SC2189) the Apex Court found as follows: 33. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. In A. K. Bindal v. Union of India (AIR2003SC2189) the Apex Court found as follows: 33. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and forgoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in business world it is known as 'Golden Handshake'. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated. 34. The contention that the employees opted for VRS under any kind of compulsion is not worthy of acceptance. The petitioners are officers of the two companies and are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons of the options which were available to them. They could have waited and pursued their claim for revision of pay scale without opting for VRS. However they, in their wisdom thought that in the fact situation VRS was a better option available and chose the same. They could have waited and pursued their claim for revision of pay scale without opting for VRS. However they, in their wisdom thought that in the fact situation VRS was a better option available and chose the same. After having applied for VRS and taken the money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of compulsion" In Punjab and Sind Bank v. Ranveer Singh Bawa ( 2004 (4) SCC 484 ), the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 observed as follows: 5. In the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, this Court observed that estoppels is based upon the acceptance and retention of benefits, by one having knowledge or notice of the benefits from a contract or a transaction. The doctrine of estoppels is a branch of the rule against assumption of inconsistent positions. One who knowingly accepts the benefit of a contract is stopped from denying the binding effect on him of such contract. This rule has to be applied to do equity. It was accordingly held that those optees who knowingly received the payments and utilized them were not entitled to withdraw from VRS.... In HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. ( 2006 (3) SCC 708 ) it has been held as follows: 11. An offer for voluntary retirement in terms of a scheme, when accepted, leads to a concluded contract between the employer and the employee. In terms of such a scheme, an employee has an option either to accept or not opt therefor. The scheme is prely voluntary, in terms whereof the tenure of service is curtailed, which is permissible in law. Such a scheme is beneficial both to the employees as well as to the employer. Such a scheme is issued for effective functioning of the industrial undertakings. Although the company is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the terms and conditions of service would be governed by the contract of employment. Thus, unless the terms and conditions of such a contract are governed by a statute or statutory rules, the provisions of the Contract Act would be applicable both at the formulation of the contract as also the determination thereof. By reason of such a scheme only is an invitation of offer floated. Thus, unless the terms and conditions of such a contract are governed by a statute or statutory rules, the provisions of the Contract Act would be applicable both at the formulation of the contract as also the determination thereof. By reason of such a scheme only is an invitation of offer floated. When pursuant to or in furtherance of such a Voluntary Retirement Scheme an employee opts therefor, he makes an offer which upon acceptance by the employer gives rise to a contract. Thus, as the matter relating to voluntary retirement is not governed by any statute, the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872, therefore, would be applicable too." 14. There is no dispute to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners Smt.Sumathi Dandapani and the Apex Court judgment relied upon by her is to the effect that the statutory right cannot be taken away by subsequent amendment to the scheme. In order to avoid arbitrariness and unreasonableness, retrospective amendment of the scheme was formulated by the bank and is not permissible. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that an officer offered for voluntary retirement in terms of a scheme, when accepted, is a concluded contract between the employer and the employee and in terms of such a scheme, an employee has option either to accept or not to accept the offer. Therefore, the claim is purely voluntary and in terms whereof the tenure of service is curtailed which is permissible in law. The Scheme is always beneficial both to the employees as well as to the employer. The employee, having made an offer, which is accepted by the employer gives rise to a concluded contract. Thus, the matter relating to voluntary retirement is not governed by any statute. I find no merit in the submission of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.