Aravind Kumar, J.— 2nd respondent Bank introduced a Scheme called "Vijaya Bank (employees) Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 as per Circular No. 231/2000 dated 23-11-2000 which is produced at Annexure-'A'. Petitioner No. 8 who was working as clerical staff in second respondent Bank, submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 29-12-2000 which came to be accepted by the bank on 28-2-2001. There afterwards the petitioner by letter/communication dated 9-4-2001 sought for withdrawal of the application submitted for voluntary retirement. However, the respondents had already accepted the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner on 29-12-2000 and intended to relieve the 8th petitioner on 30-4-2001. The fact remains that on 28-2-2001 an endorsement came to be issued to the 8th petitioner informing him that his application for voluntary retirement has been accepted and that he would be relieved of the services of the bank on 30-4-2001 and it is against this endorsement the 8th petitioner submitted an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank i.e., the third respondent seeking for setting aside the said endorsement issued by the competent authority and also permission to continue in service. The said appeal has not been disposed off and same is pending without being considered according to the petitioner.

2. Immediately there afterwards 8th petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 23-4-2001 and was granted an interim order on 24-4-2001 by virtue of which the 8th petitioner has continued in the service of the bank as on date.

3. The petitioner is now seeking the following reliefs in the present writ petition.

(i) For striking down paragraph 11.5.0 of the Vijaya Bank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme,2000 which is at Annexure 'A' on the ground that it is ultra vires of the Articles 14, 16, 21, 41, and 42 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) For Certiorari to quash the endorsement J-2 on the ground that it is capricious, ultra vires arbitrary, irrational, unjust and unsustainable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) A mandamus to the bank to permit them to continue the petitioner in the services of the bank till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation and,

(iv) All consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled for including the costs of this proceedings.

4. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed their objections and contended that because of policy decision to rationalise and restructure the same so as to yield optimum working results and it is only after due deliberation and consideration of all aspects of the matter the scheme for voluntary retirement came to be formulated. It is further contended that scheme was an offer from the bank to the employees and it is for the employees to accept or not. By opting to take voluntary retirement an employee is deemed to have accepted the offer. Hence, it is contended the mere submission of application for voluntary retirement resulted in a binding contract on both the parties and hence they are bound by the same.

5. Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for M/s Subba Rao Associates for the petitioners contends as follows:

(i) That acceptance letter by the second respondent bank dated 28-2-2001 is conditional;

(ii) The words "subject to your complying": and even later Clauses in the said letter dated 28-2-2001 is conditional;

(iii) The said letter of acceptance postulates reciprocal promises to be fulfilled by both the sides, and which has not been complied by respondents.

Elaborating his submissions Sri. Subramanya Bhat contends that by virtue of Clause 11.7.0 of the scheme the petitioner had a right to withdraw before being relieved from the services and would further contend that acceptance would have to be without conditions and by imposition of a condition in the acceptance letter the said contract itself would become a counter offer. Salary to the petitio