IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14923 of 2008 MGMT.OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pawapuri Vihar, N.H.28, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur represented through Chief Manager. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna. 2. Smt. Madhuri Devi, wife of late Ajay Mehta resident of village Ithar,P.O. Barha, P.S. Benipatti, District, Madhubani represented through the General Secretary, Bihar State Central Bank Employees Union Mauryalok Complex, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha Senior Advocate Mr. Bimlendu Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.2: Mr. Shambhu Pd. Singh,Advocate For the State: Mr.Jainendra Kumar Singh,A.C.to G.A.10 --- 2. 19.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2- workman and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.7.2008 ( Annexure-6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 59 ( C ) of 2007, by which it was held that the reversion order passed by the Management of the Bank against respondent No.2, Madhuri Devi, is fit only to be recalled and she is also entitled to get the loss occurred due to the said illegal and unjustified order of the Management compensated. The short facts leading up to the reference are that the husband of respondent No.2 died in harness while serving the Central Bank of India as a clerk in Madhubani Branch. Respondent No.2 applied for appointment on compassionate ground as Clerk in the said Bank on the basis of the certificate of Madhyama claiming that the same was equivalent to Matriculation. The appointment was made by 2 letter dated 1.10.2001. Subsequently, she was confirmed in that cadre also. Thereafter by the letter dated 22.9.2002 issued by the Regional Office, Darbhanga, the Branch office, Madhubani was informed that respondent No.2 be reverted to the subordinate cadre with immediate effect since a clarification had been received from the Indian Bank Assocation that the Madhyama examination conducted by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board was not to be treated at par with the Matriculation Examination, as the same is not recognized by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India as equivalent to Matriculation. An industrial dispute was raised with respect to the said reversion. Thereafter, the following reference was made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by order dated 27.11.2007 under Section 10 (2A) (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is quoted herein below: “Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur in recruiting Smt. Madhuri Devi to the post of Clerk on compassionate ground and afterwards reverting her to the lower post of sub-staff cadre on the ground that Madhyama pass from Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna is not equivalent to the post of Matric pass Exam. is justified and legal? If not what relief Smt. Madhduri Devi is entitled to?” On a consideration of the order and documentary evidence produced by the party, the learned Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the Management of the Central Bank of India, Zonal office, Muzaffarpur in recruiting Smt. Madhuri Devi to the post of Clerk on compassionate ground and afterwards reverting her to the lower post of sub-staff on the ground that Madhyama certificate obtained from the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, 3 Patna is not equivalent to Matriculation is neither legal nor justified and further that the order of reversion passed by the Management against her is fit to be recalled and the said workman is entitled to get loss occurred due to said illegal order compensated. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submits that the Tribunal has seriously erred, since the Madhyama qualification is admittedly not an accepted valid qualification equivalent to Matriculation as per the letter of the Indian Bank Association and the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions referred to above. It is argued that the mere acceptance of the said qualification as equivalent to Matriculation by the State Government can have no effect in favour of respondent No.2, since the Bank follows the decision of the Central Government in these matters and clearly the Central Government does not recognize the same as equivalent to Matriculation. It is thus contended that the Management of the Bank was justified in cancelling the appointment of respondent No.2 as clerk and reverting her on the post of sub- staff since she was not a Matriculate. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the fact that there are other clerks in the Bank, who have been appointed on the basis of Madhyama certificatre obtained from the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna and they are still working under the said Management. It is urged that the principles of equality laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be extended to perpetuate an illegal order and even if others have obtained benefit earlier on the basis of such wrong 4 application of the rules by the Bank, the same cannot be perpetuated in the case of the petitioner. In this regard reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India & others Vs. M.T. Latheesh: 2006 Lab- I.C. 4025. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supports the award of the Industrial Tribunal stating that it has rightly come to the conclusion that a large number of appointments had been made by the Bank on the post of Clerks on the basis of Madhyama certificates treating the same as equivalent to Matriculation examination and, therefore, it was not open to the Bank to single out the respondent No.2 and to take such action against her. It is submitted that such action of the Management amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.T. Latheesh (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present matter. Learned counsel also points out that the Madhyama Certificate has been recognised as Matriculation by the State Government and thus the Bank had rightly appointed the petitioner on the post of clerk treating the said certificate as equivalent to Matriculation. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the award dated 26.7.2008 of the Industrial Tribunal. The issue involved in the present matter is not whether the Madhyama certificate is equivalent to Matriculation or not for the purpose of employment as Clerk in the Bank. The fact is that the Bank itself had been treating 5 the same as equivalent to Matriculation and a large number of persons had been recruited on the post of clerk on the basis of possession of Madhyama certificate issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The other aspect of the matter is that on the basis of the said practice in the Bank, the petitioner was also granted an appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Clerk since she possesseed Madhyama certificate. The most important fact is that the petitioner was subsequently after her appointment on compassionate ground confirmed in the cadre of Clerks. This being the admitted position, according to this Court, it was not open to the Bank to proceed alone against respondent No.2 and revert her in the subordinate cadre. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was still under consideration so far as the respondent No.2 is concerned has no relevance at all in the facts of the case. Once it is accepted that respondent No.2 was confirmed in the cadre of Clerks, then the question that she was recruited on the basis of Madhyama certificate which is not equivalent to Matriculation cannot be raised against her alone. In the said circumstances any action by the Bank exclusively against the said respondent would amount to a violation of the principles of equality laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution. Here it is not a case of perpetuating illegality by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondent No.2 was not claiming appointment on the post of clerk on the basis of Madhyama 6 certificate taking a plea that other similarly situated persons have been appointed on the basis of Madhyama certificate. The stand of respondent No.2 would be that she being a confirmed clerk could not be singled out for being reverted to the lower post. The fact that she had come through the route of compassionate appointment can be of no relevance once she was confirmed in the cadre since she would thereafter be identically situated as all the confirmed clerks of the cadre. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)