Equitable estoppel applies when an employee is denied an interview despite passing an exam after being permitted to take it by the employer.

1. The petitioner, who joined the State Bank of India as a Cashier, was promoted as Deputy Head Cashier in the year 1974. His next avenue of promotion post is Junior Management Grade, Scale I (Head Cashier). Under the policy in force of the bank, promotion to the post of Head Cashier is to be done by holding written examinations and viva voce tests. A clerical staff is given only three chances to qualify himself for promotion. The petitioner had exhausted two chances unsuccessfully. For availing the last and the third chance, he was allowed to sit for a written test in 1981 and later he was informed that he was successful in the written test. When the petitioner was making arrangements to proceed to Madras for the viva voce test (interview), he received a communication, dated 7 November 1981, from the branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ottapalam Branch, in which the petitioner was asked not to proceed to Madras for the interview. No reasons were assigned in that letter as to why the petitioner was not permitted to appear for the interview. The petitioner sent a lawyer's notice on 9 November 1981 to which a reply was sent, dated 2 January 1982, stating that as per the debarment policy relating to members of award staff, which is binding on the petitioner, if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated for gross misconduct against any employee, he is not eligible to write the promotion test. The petitioner states that he had been illegally prevented from appearing for the interview even though he had passed the written examination for promotion to the post of Head Cashier. It is in these circumstances, the prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to call the petitioner for the interview for promotion to the post of Head Cashier on the basis of the petitioner having already passed the written examination.

2. In the counter - affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that since the departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner, be was not considered for promotion in terms of this policy and the bark stopped him from appearing for the interview to be held on 10 November 1981. It is further stated that the fact that he was proceeded against departmentally was not made known to the first respondent and when the mistake was discovered, the petitioner was properly stopped from appearing for the interview to which he was not eligible under the bank's rules. It is further stated that the validity of the debarment policy has been upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7420 of 1984.

3. Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that as a person who belongs to clerical category, normally he was eligible to sit for the examination for promotion to the post of Head Cashier and, therefore, when the petitioner was allowed to sit for the examination, there was no illegality in it. The petitioner further states that he did not suppress any material facts when he sought permission to sit for the examination. He did not play any fraud on the respondents which prevented them from scrutinising the relevant records before permitting the petitioner to sit for the examination. Therefore, when the petitioner was permitted to sit for the examination, it should he presumed that the respondents with full knowledge of all the relevant facts had, after applying their mind, permitted the petitioner to sit for the examination. On the strength of such permission, the petitioner having prepared for the examination and wrote the same and after having passed in the written examination, when he was awaiting an