The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of regulations governing employment qualifications and the obligation of public bodies to act fairly are crucial in determining the entitlement of employees to promotions and other benefits.

Petitioners are working as Clerk-cum-typist in the various branches of the first respondent-bank. They joined the service of the bank as such on 9-5-1972, 25-4-1973 and 26-2-1972 respectively.

2. The Kerala State Co-operative Bank Staff Regulations which came into force from 16-2-1968, for short, The Staff Regulations, prescribes the qualifications and methods of appointments for the various posts in the bank. Regulation 15 deals with the category of employees. The four categories of employees are:

(i) Officers Grade

(ii) Senior Grade

(iii) Junior Grade and

(iv) Subordinate Grade Following categories of posts have been included in the Junior Grade:

a) Ledger Clerks.

b) Clerks.

C) Steno Typist.

d) Typists.

e) Cashier.

f) Record Keeper.

Regulation 28 prescribes the qualification for the various categories of posts. Yet another

Regulation which is relevant here is regulation 28(h). This regulation stipulates the qualifications for the post of Junior Assistant. It reads:-

"A Graduate of a recognised University with not less than 2 years experience in the Bank's work as ledger clerk or non-graduate with not less than 7 years experience in the fiank's work". (emphasis supplied)

3. It is in this background the case of the petitioners requires to be considered. That the petitioners were appointed as clerk-cum-typist is beyond challenge. A question would immediately arise as to whether the petitioners can be treated as typist included in the Junior Grade within the meaning of Regulation 15. After considering an identical question my brother

Justice Viswanatha Iyer has observed thus:

"In fact the necessity for promotional avenues forty Isis had been recognised by all

Parties, which led to the constitution of the tripartite committee and its recommendations. It cannot therefore, be contended that the grant of a benefit of promotion to a typist was in any manner illegal or uncalled for "

(See the judgment in O.P. Nos. 315,6309/86 & 5870/88). This court was considering the claim of one Thankamni Ammal who also had been appointed as a clerk-cum-typist in the service of the Bank for promotion as Junior Assistant. The argument of the Bank in that case was that Thankamani Ammal was not entitled to get promotion as junior Assistant because she was appointed not as a typist but only as a clerk-cum-typist. This argument of the Bank was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The Bank therefore cannot be heard to say that the petitioners are *not eligible for promotion as Junior Assistant. That the petitioners have the requisite qualification, going by Regulation 28(h) cannot be disputed. A reference in this connection to the following finding of the learned judge in the above judgment is -profitable:

"Apart from that, regulation 28(h) does not bar such an interpretation. There is a

Clear distinction made in that sub regulation of experience with reference to a graduate and experience with reference to a non-graduate. For the former two years experience in the Bank's work as a ledger clerk is required. For the latter seven years experience in the Bank's work is prescribed. What is required is experience in Bank's work. There is no particular category of work specified in sub-regulation (h) for a non-graduate. There is nothing to indicate that work, as typist is not bank's work. When the regulation is general and it had been applied in the case of other typists, jam unable to comprehend how that could not be applied in the case of Thankamani Ammal alone

The petitioners, since they possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under 28(h) ought to have been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant by the Bank.

4. The Bank however, has not given the petitioners the promotion. Not only that, the Bank has also taken up the stand that under no circumstance,-the petitioners will be given their legitimate promotion, notwithstanding the above judgment of this court. To see whether the Bank on its own, was prepared to take note of the above judgment and undo the in