Full Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for declaration that the action of the respondents-Bank in disqualifying him for recruitment to the Post of messenger on the ground of possessing higher education qualification i.e., passing out S.S.C. as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further he has sought a direction to the respondents to appoint him as a Messenger in the services of the respondents-Bank.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed S.S.C. Examination in the year 1974. He was originally appointed as a temporary Messenger at the Kurnool Branch of the State Bank of India in April, 1977 and he worked there between April, 1977 and July, 1981 for a total period of 331 days. In the year 1986 when the respondents-Bank proceeded to absorb the services of temporary class-IV employees who worked for more than 270 days within a span of 3 years, the petitioner laid his claim for absorption. He was permitted to appear for interview held on 5-4-1986. Later, on 28-7-1986 he was informed by the Bank authorities that he was disqualified for the post of Messenger in that he is over-qualified. According to the Regulations governing recruitment to the Post of Messengers/Watchman/Armed Guards, one should have VIII Class passed, but not X Class passed to seek appointment to those posts. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner had S.S.C. even at the time of initial appointment Placing reliance on the Regulations, the Bank has refused to regularise his services though he had put in more than 270 days of total service within a period of 3 years.
3. A counter has been filed by the Bank authorities. Subsequently when this matter was heard on last occasion, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank sought permission to file additional counter affidavit to highlight the reasons for prescribing lower educational qualifications for the post and accordingly additional counter affidavit was also filed. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Bank it has given certain reasons as to why the Bank has prescribed the lower educational qualification for the Post of Messenger and highlighted the utility of such prescription both in terms of interest of the Bank as well as the public interest.
4. Sri V. Srinivas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the issue which arises for consideration in the writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this Court rendered by B. Subhashan Reddy, delivered in the case of Smt. Mary Sai Kumari v. Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Region IV, State Bank of India, Vijayawada and Anr., : (1995)ILLJ539AP . That was a case where the petitioner therein was a Scheduled-Caste woman and she had passed S.S.C. The Bank had appointed heron a temporary basis for the post of Attender. There afterwards the Bank noticing that at the time of initial appointment itself she had S.S.C, issued show cause notice calling upon her to show cause as to why she should not be discharged from service on the ground that she suppressed of having passed the S.S.C. Examination. At that stage, the petitioner therein filed the writ petition questioning the validity of show cause notice and the proposed action. B. Subhashan Reddy, dealing with that matter and placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah, : [1992]2SCR780 opined that the proposed action of the respondent-Bank to discharge the petitioner therein solely on the ground of acquisition of better qualification is not only violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but also hit by the postulates of the Article 21 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter, His Lordship allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice. After careful consideration of the ratio and the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, I, with utmost respect, differ. The Supreme Court in the case of J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rules that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. The Supreme Court further held that in case of any grievance in that respect the only course open to the concerned is to move the appropriate authorities for review of prescribed qualifications. It is relevant to note that greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employers to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. It is not to say that the employers particularly the State employers can act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank, in paragraph 4 of the same, the Dank has placed the factors and reasons which weighed with it in prescribing the lower educational qualification for the post of Messengers and Attenders 1 am of the prima facie opinion that the factors and reasons which have gone into the decision making cannot be termed as totally arbitrary or unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Added to this, in a recent judgment the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan and Anr., 1994 (2) ALJ 888 was confronted with almost similar facts situation. In that case the respondent sought employment in the appellant company as a Badli workman suppressing the fact that he completed X Standard and stating falsehood that he passed only VIII Standard Examination. According to the Regulations, the educational qualification of the candidate should not be more than VIII Standard. The respondent had produced a concocted false certificate to show that he had educational qualification of VIII Standard. On this ground the services of the respondent were terminated. The matter was carried before the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court granted the relief to the respondent and set aside the impugned order of termination. The matter was further litigated before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, while affirming the award of the Labour Court, observed thus:
'Workers were expected to give correct information as to their qualification. They failed to do so. They were in fact over-qualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job. It has been stated that applications received from some over-qualified candidates were rejected. The petitioner as also the workers are bound by the terms of Ext.P-1 which had to be given effect to. Over-qualification is certainly, in the, circumstances,. a disqualification, which aspect the first respondent failed to grasp. (Emphasis is supplied by the Court). Ext.P-10 in these cases is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.'
Although the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court ruled that workers were expected to give correct information as to their qualification and the workers who are over-qualified are ineligible to apply for the job and that over-qualification was certainly a disqualification, the learned Judge thought it fit not to interfere with the award made by the Labour Court extending judicial compassion. Further, the Writ Appeal of the Management was also dismissed. The dispute was carried before the Supreme Court by the Management. The Supreme Court, while allowing the civil appeal of the Management, set aside the orders made by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court and rejected the industrial dispute raised by the respondent. The Supreme Court has noted the lower educational qualification prescribed for the post of Badli workman in that case. Further, the Supreme Court also in paragraph 4 of the Judgment observed that the view taken by the learned single Judge of the High Court that over-qualification is certainly a disqualification is right. A careful reading of the Judgment of the Supreme Court indicates that the Apex Court did not take any exception to the prescription of lower educational qualification for the post of Badli workman and on the other hand approved the relevancy of the prescription of lower educational qualification for the Post of Badli workman. Under these circumstances and despite my best effort to persuade myself to fall in line with the view taken by My Lord, B. Subashan Reddy, J., I am not in a position to do so and in that view of the matter, it is for the larger Bench of this Court to pronounce its opinion and settle the issue.
5. Accordingly, I refer this Writ Petition to the Division Bench under Rule 14 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the learned Chief Justice and obtain necessary orders to post for hearing before the appropriate Division Bench.