( 1 ) THE petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served Indian Army from 1969 to 1987. After his discharge, he worked as Armed Guard on daily wage basis from July, 1988 to July, 1989. Pursuant to a Notification issued by the State Bank of India, to fill up vacancies of various posts including bank guards he applied to the respondent-Bank for the post of Armed Guard. He was not selected and he was not considered. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to regularise his services pursuant to the Notification.

( 2 ) A counter-affidavit is filed admitting the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit. It is, however, stated that as per the Notification for the post of Armed Guard candidates should be non-matric. As the petitioner is Matriculate, his name was not considered.

( 3 ) THE short question therefore is whether the educational qualifications prescribed by the respondent-Bank are arbitrary and capricious?

( 4 ) THE notice inviting applications to fill up vacancies full-time or part-time Messengers, Farrashes, Cash Coolies, Sweepers, Bank Guards etc. , was issued by the State Bank of India, Hyderabad Local Head Office in accordance with settlement dated 27-10-1988 entered into between the State Bank of and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the settlement dated 27-10-1988 the bank proposed to give a chance to full-time or part-time ad hoc employees of being appointed on regular basis. Accordingly, the Notification was issued prescribing the following educational qualifications. Educational Qualifications:candidates should have been non-matriculate on the date of initial temporary appointment. Candidates who had passed 8th class but are not matriculate will be considered for Messengerial positions; others will be considered for non-Messengerial positions. However, if a candidate has acquired higher educational qualification by passing High School/scc/matriculation/other equivalent examination in 2nd or 3rd division only after having ceased to be in the bank s temporary service, he will be deemed eligible for availing of the chance provided the higher qualification has not been used by him to secure employment elsewhere.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank Sri S. R. James placed reliance on the educational qualifications prescribed by the Notification and submits that the petitioner being a Matriculate is not qualified for being regularised/appointed as Armed Guard. I am not able to agree with the submission. There cannot be any valid objection if the bank prescribes non-matriculation or VIII Class as minimum qualification. However, if a policy is taken that persons with minimum qualifications, in this case non-matriculates, are alone will be eligible, the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, if any public authority or the Government body prefers only less qualified persons to more qualified persons, the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It would be different thing if in prescribing qualifications the authority totally adopts an arbitrary and capricious policy in which event it might violate doctrine of social justice. For instance if, for a post of sweeper, the authority prescribed the qualifications of Post-Graduation it would certainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of social justice for, in effect such prohibition would certainly exclude all the poor and poorer classes for competing for the post of Sweepers. This view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. R. Kothandaraman v. T. N. Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994) 6 SCC 282 = 1994 (II) LLN 1066, wherein it was held. Further, even if in a case the classification would not be acceptable to the Court on principle, it would, before pronouncing its judgment, bear in mind the historical background. It is apparent that