The discretion of an authority to accept or reject VRS applications must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and judiciously, and arbitrariness and discrimination are opposed to reasonableness and the rule of law.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated february 11, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 1, Chairman and Managing Director, indian Overseas Bank Ltd. (Annexure 10 to the petition ). Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to accept the petitioners option/application for IOB officers/employees Voluntary Retirement scheme, 2000.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is presently working as chief Manager (Scale-IV) in Indian Overseas bank, Civil Lines Branch. Allahabad. The date of birth of the petitioner is July 1, 1949. Thus, he has completed over 53 years of age. The petitioner joined the service of the Bank on october 26, 1970 and had been working as chief Manager (Scale-IV) since 1998.

( 4 ) IN para 4 of the petition it is stated that the petitioners service as Chief Manager (Scale-IV) has been appreciated by his superior authorities in view of his sincerity and honesty throughout. In para 6 it is alleged that in the year 2000, the Bank introduced the scheme called Indian Overseas Bank officers/employees Voluntary Retirement scheme, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme ). The said Scheme was floated on december 2, 2000, and it was to remain valid for a period 5 years. The officers/employees of the Bank were required to submit an application (for which proforma has been given in the scheme) within the period December 15, 2000 to January 19, 2001. The object of Scheme is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition which states:

"a Scheme to adopt measures to have optimum human resources at various levels in keeping with the business strategies, skill profile to achieve balanced age and requirement of the Bank. "

( 5 ) UNDER the Scheme those who have completed 15 years permanent service or 40 years of age and do not have the disqualification mentioned in para 4. 2 of the Scheme were eligible. The petitioner has alleged that he has completed much more than 40 years of age and his length of service is about 30 years and he does not have the disqualification as mentioned in para 4. 2 of the Scheme. True copy of the scheme is Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner submitted his application on december 15, 2000 opting for the VRS vide annexure 2 to the petition.

( 6 ) IN para 11 of the petition it is stated that on February 21, 2001, the respondent No. 2, under instruction from respondent No. 1, passed an order informing the petitioner that his application has been rejected. True copy of the order dated February 21, 2001 is Annexure 3 to the petition. This order states that the competent authority has decided not to accept the petitioners application, considering the business/organizational requirements and administrative exigencies of the Bank.

( 7 ) THE petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 41677 of 2001 challenging the order dated february 21, 2001. This Court quashed the order dated February 21, 2001 vide Annexure 6 to the petition. In that judgment this Court held that the Bank has acted arbitrarily in the petitioners case and had rejected his application without giving good reasons. Hence the impugned order dated February 21, 2001, was quashed and the Bank was directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment and decide the petitioners application afresh within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. This Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution requires that there should be no arbitrariness or discrimination and there must be some clear cut objective criteria as to whose application will be accepted and whose application will be rejected. In paragraph 6 of the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit in that case it was stated that it was purely in the discretion of the Bank as to whose application under VRS will be accepted and whose will not. This was held to be arbitrary as it could give rise to pick and choose, particularly