ORDER
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Thus spoke H.G. Wells-“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe”. Modern Indian reformers of the later part of 18th century possibly felt that modern education would keep at bay the catastrophe caused due to ignorance of modernism, and British Premier, Macaullay, thought it appropriate to make the Indians educated and learned in English as that would open new vistas of knowledge for them. The saying-learning of a language is sometimes a luxury-was not the motto. It was essential for understanding the world in its expanding modernity, perceiving progress in proper perspective, cultivating culture in serene calmness, training oneself in liberalising political thought and observing advancement of science in composed rationality. However, with the change of time, the ideal of establishing a well-affirmed national identity gained ground. Keeping in mind, the idea of enrichment of self-respect and self-dependence, the constitutional fathers thought it appropriate to make Hindi the national Language and later on the Parliament legislated ushering in the Official Languages Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), but how far they have ostracised English, is the seminal question that calls for adjudication in the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution by an employee of the Union Bank of India who has expressed his deep seated anguish and prayed for issue of appropriate writ declaring the promotion policy of the said Bank, which requires a candidate to secure minimum percentage of marks in English to quality in the Written Test, as arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as infringing the principles enshrined under Articles 343, 344 and 14 of the Constitution of India, and further issue a Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reconstitute the merit list relating to Officers Cadre without taking into consideration the marks obtained by the competing candidates in the English Language paper and publish a revised select list.
2. The essential facts : The petitioner is working in the post of Head Cashier in the Clerical Cadre in the Union Bank of India, extension counter, 9th Battalion S.A.F., Rewa. The Officers’ Cadre include Junior Management Grade I, Junior Management Grade II, Middle Management Grade II, Higher Management Grade IV, Higher Management Grade V and Higher Management Grade VI. According to the petitioner promotions from the Clerical Cadre to that of the Officers Cadre in the Union Bank of India are governed by the settlement arrived at between the Management and the All India Union Bank Employees’ Association in terms of which the promotion policy for clerical staff for promotion to the Officers Cadre has been formulated and circulated vide circular dated October 23, 1992. The promotional policy has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. Chapter I of the policy provides for two channel of promotion from the Clerical Cadre to the Officers Cadre, Junior Management Grade. Scale I, the State Services (seniority-cum-merit) and All India Services (merit). It provides for filling-up of Junior Management grade Scale I; 45 % by promotion to State Services; 30% by promotion through All India Services and 25% by direct recruitment. As stipulated in the policy 25 % of the vacancies are earmarked for direct recruitment and out of the remaining 75 %, 60 % vacancies are to be filled-up by promotion through the State Services and 40% through All India Services. Vacancies in the State as well as All India Services are filled-up by means of the competitive examination. Chapter II of the promotion policy deals with subject of State Services. Certain eligibility criteria are fixed after identifying the vacancies to be filled up, candidates twice the number of identified vacancies are called for the Written Test which comprises of one paper carrying 100 marks. Chapter HI deals with subjects of All India Services. In order to be eligible to compete, a candidate is required to have a minimum three years of service in the Clerical Cadre as on the specified cut off date. Promotions are made under All India Services by Written Test which consists of four subjects, namely, English, Law and Practice of Banking, Commercial Law/ Accountancy and Practical Banking. Minimum qualifying mark is prescribed in the Written Test in all the subjects. As is apparent English has been made a compulsory paper for the said Written Test and minimum 35% of mark is necessary to qualify in the said Written Test. In consonance with the promotion policy vacancies were advertised vide staff circular dated April 26, 1993 inviting applications from all clerical employees who had completed three years of satisfactory service in the Clerical Cadre as on April 13, 1993. The petitioner being eligible, appeared in the Written Test but was not successful as he had not secured the minimum qualifying marks in the English Language paper. The marksheet was communicated to him on September 11, 1995. Vacancies were again advertised in the year 1995 and the petitioner once again took up the examination. Though he had scored good marks in all other subjects he could not obtain minimum requisite marks in the English Language Paper, he was declared unsuccessful. The mark sheet was communicated to him on May 4, 1996 as contained in Annexure P-5. Feeling aggrieved about the unfortunate scenario, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Manager (Personnel) protesting that disadvantage had been caused to him on account of the English Language Paper and non-inclusion of Hindi in the said examination as an optional paper. The first representation was made on February 14, 1996. Thereafter the petitioner submitted two more representations indicating that the candidates who had secured lesser marks than him had been called for interview and the sole reason for his disqualification/non-selection was non-obtaining of minimum qualifying marks in the English Language paper. This failure on the part of the petitioner is sought to be agitated in this writ petition. The individual dissatisfaction has been canvassed in the constitutional backdrop. It is averred in the writ petition that the promotional policy which stipulates minimum qualifying marks in English Language is violative of the provisions eashrined under Articles 343 and 344 of the Constitution. It is also putforth that the promotional policy is against the spirit of the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963. It is also set forth that the English Language paper in All India Service Examination in other nationalised banks is not compulsory whereas the same has been made compulsory in the case of the respondent No. 1 Bank, by which a discrimination is caused which is against the conscience of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the promotional policy has been formulated on the basis of the settlement arrived at under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said settlement was entered into between the respondent-Bank and the majority Workmen Union i.e., All India Union Bank Employees Association on October 10, 1992 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. It is also putforth that the petitioner is a workman and cannot call in question the validity of the settlement, more so, when the union is not a party to the present writ petition. It is also stated that the petitioner has to resort to the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is highlighted that there are two channels of promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officers Cadre: State Services and All India Services. In State Services two times the number of identified vacancies are called for promotion process in each State, in order of seniority of the employees. In All India Services all confirmed clerical employees who have completed three years of service are eligible to participate in the Written Test. In the State Service only senior employees are called for the promotion whereas in the merit channel all eligible employees can participate in the competition irrespective of their seniority and there is no minimum qualifying marks in Written Test for the State Services Channel and list of the employees is prepared in order of marks obtained In the Written Test. It is further pleaded that in All India Services more emphasis is given on merit and in the State Services stress is on seniority. The employees appearing for promotion test in All India Services are required to have working knowledge in English Language and, therefore, the Written Test in the English Language is included. It is also contended that the promotional policy has been formulated taking into consideration the overall situation. Interest of employees working throughout the country and necessity of administration. It is also pleaded that the stand of the petitioner that the percentage of successful candidates in the promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officers Cadre in Southern region is high because of English is not correct as statistics reveal that 47.12% and 37. 87% candidates have failed in English Language (though they have passed in all other states) in South Zone-I and South Zone-II respectively, in the Written Test held on 1995 whereas 37.98%, 31.14% and 33.80% have failed in English (through they have passed in all other subjects in Northern Zone, Central Zone-I and Centre Zone-II) respectively which are considered to be Hindi speaking zones. The challenge is the background of constitutional provision and the Official Languages Act has also been controverted in the return. It is also stated that the promotion policy of other nationalised banks are based on the requirement of their services and not binding on the answering respondents.
4. A rejoinder to the return has been filed emphasising that as the policy in question is challenged the writ petition is maintainable. The reason for including English as one of the papers and making it obligatory on the part of a candidate to secure 35 % has been seriously criticised. It is also put forth that the respondent-Bank by circular dated December 28, 1993 has declared certain districts as Hindi districts in the country. As stated in the rejoinder, five States have been completely declared as Hindi States and by making English compulsory, the non-Hindi speaking States are benefited.
5. An application for taking additional facts and documents, has also been tiled whereby the petitioner has brought on record certain circulars issued by the UCO Bank, Central Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Bank of Maharashtra clarifying to the extent that though English Paper has been included in All India Examination the failure in the same subject would not act as a disqualification. The Annual Programme of circular issued by the Department of Official Languages, Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) for implementation of the Official Language policy of the Union, wherein it has been stated that option should be given to answer question papers in Hindi or English, has been brought on record.
6. We have heard Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Menon, learned counsel for the respondents. Assailing the defensibility of the promotion policy it is contended by Mr. Tankha that the policy offends the conscience of Articles 343 and 344 of the Constitution. It is also his submission that the policy contravenes the mandate enjoined under Section 3(4) of the Act. It is canvassed by him that there is infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as a discrimination is made between the candidates hailing from Hindi speaking regions and other regions and the discrimination is aggravated when the English Language paper is not made compulsory by other banks whereas the employees of the respondent-Bank have to face this hazard. He has also built up his argument by highlighting that the policy comes within the inhibition of the circular issued by the Department of Official Languages and hence it incurs the liability of being pregnable.
Mr. Rajendra Menon, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously urged that the formulation of promotional policy by the Bank is not a unilateral act of the Management of the Bank and, in fact, it has been framed on the basis of settlement reached after due negotiation, and hence it is unassailable by a singular workman. It is also proposed by the learned counsel that apart from the existence of settlement the policy in no way comes within the inhibition of Articles 343 and 344 of the Constitution. He has also built up his argument by contending that the question of discrimination or arbitrariness is totally absent as the Banks’ policy is uniformly applied to all the employees of the Bank and comparison of the promotion policy with that of other banks is not a relevant factor to be taken note of while adjudging the sustainability of the policy on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution as the policy is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable.
7. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we shall first advert to Articles 343 and 344 of the Constitution which read as under:
“343. Official Language of the Union (1) The Official Language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement:
Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Article, Parliament may provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years of:-
(a) the English language, or
(b) the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
344. Commission and Committee of Parliament of Official Language – (1) The President shall, at the expiration of five years from the commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission which shall coasist of a Chairman and such other members representing the different languages specified in the English Schedule as the President may appoint, and the orders shall define the procedure to be followed by the Commission.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations to the President as to :-
(a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union;
(b) restriction on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the Union;
(c) the language to be used for all or any of the purposes mentioned in Article 348;
(d) the form of numerals to be used for any one or more specified purposes of the Union;
(e) any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as regards the official language of the Union and the language for communication between the Union and a State or between -one State and another and their use.
(3) In making their recommendations under Clause (2), the Commission shall have due regard to the industrial, cultural and scientific advancement of India, and the just claims and the interests of persons belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services.
(4) There shall be constituted a Committee consisting of thirty members, of whom twenty shall be members of the House of the People and ten shall be members of the Council of States to be elected respectively by the members of the House of the People and the members of the Council of States in accordance with system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
(5) It shall be the duty of Committee to examine the recommendations of the Commission constituted under Clause (1) and to report to the President their opinion thereon.
(6) Notwithstanding anything ini 343, the President may, after consideration of the report referred to in Clause (5), issue directions in accordance with the whole or any part of that report.”
On a bare reading of the aforesaid constitutional provisions it is clear that Article 343 provides the Official Language of Union s shall be Hindi in Devanagari script and Article 344 confers powers on the President to constitute a Commission representing different languages in the Eighth Schedule to make to the President as to progressive use of Hindi language in the official purposes of the Union and restriction on the use of English Language in all or any of the official purposes of the Union. At this juncture, we may refer to Article 345 of the Constitution which reads as under:
“345. Official Language or language of a State-Subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may be by law adopt any one or more of the Languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or language to be used for all or any of the official purposes at that State: Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English-Language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.”
The aforesaid constitutional provision confers powers on a State Legislature to make law adopting any or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language for official purposes. The proviso gains importance as it permits continuance of English language until otherwise provided by the State Legislature. In absence of expression legisaltive prohibition against such use English can be used for the official purposes of the State. The legislative field relates to adoption of a specified language for official purposes of the State. A State Legislature may adopt Hindi as Official Language but would not exclude the right of the authorities to prescribe English as a subject in any examination and it would confer a right on an examiner not to appear in the examination. At this juncture we may refer toi 351 of the Constitution which reads as follows:
“Directive for development of the Hindi Language-It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expression, used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.”
On a reading of the aforesaid provision it is noticed that the Constitution mandates for development of Hindi language and a duty is cast on the Union Government to do so. One may not indulge in anti-Hindi agitation but, in absence of any prohibition there is no bar to provide English as a subject in the curriculum or a subject in any departmental examination. There is no bar with regard to medium of instructions. At this juncture we may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Sunil K.R. Sahasrabudhey v. Director LIT., Kanpur AIR 1982 Allahabad 398, wherein their Lordships held as under:
“…… Article 345 provides that the State can adopt by legislation any one or more of the languages for use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the State. Under this Article, therefore, that language which is adopted by the State must be used for official purposes. The mere fact of adopting a language by a State as the Official Language would not entitle any student to receive education in that language and not in the one which is the medium of instruction adopted by the institution. Although Hindi has been declared as the National Language, no student getting education in an institution run under a Central Act can force the institution to impart education to him in Hindi in Devanagari script. It is for the Government concerned to make suitable amendments in the law which may compel the institution to impart education in the National Language.”
In this context, we may also refer to the decision rendered in the case of Ajai Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.: 1980 LAB. I.C. NOC 84 (All.) wherein it has been held as under:
“Where a Government Department found that in Departmental Examination the optional use of Hindi as a medium to answer General English Paper was not yielding satisfactory result and, therefore, it decided to continue English as a medium for answering that paper this policy decision did not contravene either Articles 351, 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Proficiency in any language other than Hindi if needed for efficient discharge of official business would not offend against the directive principle contained in Article 351 or the same could not be questioned as infringing any right vesting in any citizen. Further, in the absence of any distinction being made between one candidate and another candidate appearing for the General English Paper, there could be no discrimination, so as to invoke Articles 14 and 16.”
In view of the aforesaid discussion it is graphically clear in absence of any constitutional prohibition, the promotion policy laying down minimum qualifying marks in English does not cause any violence to any of the constitutional provisions. Hence, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance.
8. The next limb of submission of Mr. Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the promotion policy violates the spirit inherent in the scheme of the Official Languages Act, 1963. He has specifically referred to Sub-section 4 of Section 3. That apart he has also referred to the preamble of the Act to highlight the aforesaid legislation was brought into existence to provide for the languages which may be used for the official purposes of the Union, for transaction of business in Parliament, for Central and States Acts and for certain purposes in High Courts. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel it is relevant to refer to the statement of objects and reasons of the Act:
Statement of Objects and Reasons
“The Committee constituted under Clause (4) of Article 344 of the Constitution to examine the recommendations of the Commission constituted under Clause (1) thereof expressed the opinion that the complete change over to Hindi by January 26, 1965 was not practicable and that the provision should be made in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 343 of the Constitution for the continued use of English even after 1965 for purposes to be specified by Parliament by law for as long as may be necessary. During the debate on the Report of the Committee, the Prime Minister made a speech on September 4, 1959 indicating broadly the approach of the Government to the Official Language question. After considering the Report or the Committee, the President issued directions on April 27, 1960 in the exercise of powers conferred on him by Clause (6) of Article 344 in which a reference was made to the speech of the Prime Minister. In order to give effect to the policy of the Government as indicated by the Prime Minister, it is proposed to provide for the continued use of the English language in addition to Hindi for official purposes of the Union and for the transaction of business in Parliament after January 26, 1965.
2. The Bill also seeks to make provision by law for certain other matters covered by the Presidential order, namely, (a) authorised Hindi translation of Central Acts, Ordinances and other statutory instruments and Bills or amendments to be introduced or moved in Parliament; (b) publication of a Hindi translation of States Act and Ordinances; and (c) for the use optionally of Hindi and other official languages of States for purposes of judgments, decrees and orders of High Courts with the previous consent of the President.”
Keeping the aforesaid backdrop in view, we may refer to Section 3 of the Act which reads as follows:
“Continuance of English language far official purposes of the Union and for use in Parliament – (1) Notwithstanding the expiration of the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language may, as from the appointed day, continue to be used, in addition to Hindi –
(a) for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately b1 before that day; and
(b) for the transaction of business in Parliament :
Provided that the English language shall be used for purposes of communication between the Union and a State which has not adopted Hindi as its official language;
Provided further that where Hindi is used for purposes of communication between one State which has adopted Hindi as its official language and another State which has not adopted Hindi as its official language, such communication in Hindi shall be accompanied by a translation of the same in the English language:
Provided also that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as preventing a State which has not adopted Hindi as its official language from using Hindi for purposes of communication with the Union or with a State which has adopted Hindi as its official language, or by agreement with any other State, and in such a case, it shall not be obligatory to use the English language for purposes of communication with that State.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where Hindi or the English language is used for purposes of communication
(i) between the Ministry or Department or office of the Central Government and another,
(ii) between the Ministry or Department or office of the Central Government and any Corporation or Company owned or controlled by the Central Government or any office thereof;
(iii) between any corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or any office thereof and another, a translation of such communication in the English language or, as the case may be, in Hindi shall also be provided till such date as the staff of the concerned Ministry, Department, office or corporation or company aforesaid have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), both Hindi and the English language shall be used for:
(i) resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative or other reports or press communiques issued or made by the Central Government or by a Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company;
(ii) administrative and other reports and official papers laid before a House or the Houses of Parliament;
(iii) contracts and agreements executed, and licences, permits, notices and forms of tender issued, by or on behalf of the Central Government or any Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company.
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), the CentralGovernment may, by rules made under Section 8, provide for the language or languages to be used for the official purposes of the Union, Including the working of any Ministry, Department, Section or Office, and in making such rules, due consideration shall be given the quick and efficient disposal of the official business and the interests of the general public and in particular, the rules so made shall ensure that persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and having proficiency either in Hindi or in the English language may function effectively and that they are not placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages.
(5) The provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), and the provisions of Sub-section (2), Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) shall remain in force until resolutions for the discontinuance of the use of the English language for the purposes mentioned therein have been passed by the Legislatures of all the States which have not adopted Hindi as their official language and until after considering the resolutions aforesaid, a resolution for such discontinuance has been passed by each House of Parliament.”
It is to be noted here that the aforesaid section was substituted by the Official Language (Amendment Act), 1968 (1 of 1968). Mr. Tankha has placed emphasis on Sub-section (4) which envisages that persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and having proficiency either in Hindi or in the English Language, are not placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages. Learned counsel for the petitioner would like us to interprete the aforesaid provision to the effect that by providing minimum pass mark in English language and making it compulsory the respondent has put the likes of the petitioner at a disadvantage and hence the same runs contrary to the aforesaid Central Legislation. Scanning the anatomy of the aforesaid provision and on a close scrutiny of the scheme of the Act, we do not find that the statute supports the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are reminded of the saying of Plowden:
” Each law consists of two parts viz., of body and soul; the letter of the law is the body of the law and the sense and reason of the law is the soul of the law.”
Bestowing our anxious consideration, we are afraid, we are not able to persuade ourselves to accept the proposition propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason nothing like this as conyassed by him, flows from the aforesaid provision. The aforesaid provision does not prohibit English to be regarded as a compulsory subject in any Departmental examination or for that matter in any examination. In the result, the submission of Mr. Tankha, though attractive is unacceptable.
9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by introduction of the aforesaid promotion policy a discrimination has been created between the employees of the Union Bank of India and other banks. Pyramiding his argument Mr. Tankha has contended that discrimination has been caused between the people of Hindi speaking region and the non-Hindi speaking region. As far as the first aspect is concerned, there is no allegation that there are different policies for different regions of the Bank. The policy is uniformly applied to all the regions. Every bank has the authority to formulate its policy as long as the policy is valid in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured hard to highlight that the promotional policy of other banks do not lay emphasis on English and no minimum pass mark is provided in the said policies. The petitioner cannot claim to be similarly placed with the employees of other banks. The concept of discrimination is attracted if there is inequality between the equals but that being not the position the promotion policy cannot be regarded to have caused violence to the soul and spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution. Quite apart from the above, we may hasten to add that we have perused the promotion policies of Indian Overseas Bank and Bank of Maharashtra where General English is also one of the subjects. We also find that in the policy of Central Bank of India, English language is one of the subjects. Mr. Tankha has contended that there is no minimum qualifying marks in English in those banks but, we are afraid, such envisagement in the policy of the respondent-Bank does not offend the conscience of the equality provision.
10. Mr. Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that in the Annual Programme for the year 1995-96 for implementation of the Official Language Policy of the Union issued by the Government of India, Department of Official Languages (Ministry of Home Affairs) a reference has been made to Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India to the resolution adopted by both the Houses of Parliament on January 18, 1968. The relevant portion of the Foreword of the policy reads as under:
“……… .According to para 1 of the Resolution, the Central Government was entrusted with the responsibility to prepare and implement a more intensive and comprehensive programme every year for accelerating the progressive use of Hindi for the official purposes of the Union as well as its spread and development. In compliance to the Resolution an Annual Programme is prepared by the Department of Official Language every year in which annual targets relating to work to be done in Hindi by the Offices of the Central Government are fixed.
3. With a view to keeping a watch and providing guidance for the implementation of the Annual Programme high powered Hindi Advisory Committees have been constituted in various Ministries/Departments. Kendriya Hindi Samiti has been working under the Chairmanship of the Prime “Minister for guidelines about policy. A Central Official Languages Implementation Committee, various Official Languages Implementation Committees of the Ministries/ Departments and 132 Town Official Language Implementation Committees (including 22 Committees of the Nationalised Banks) in major cities of the country are also functioning to implement this Programme. Actually the task of implementing this Programme is the responsibility of each and every officer as well as employees working in the offices of Central Government and its Undertakings.”
Mr. Tankha has also referred to us Clause 5.8 of Chapter V of the said Programme which reads as under:
“5.8. Option to reply in Hindi the question papers relating to in-service departmental or promotional examinations.
In all in-service departmental and promotional examinations conducted on All India basis, option should be given to answer question papers in Hindi or English. Question papers should be set both in Hindi and English and option should be given to reply in Hindi in interviews also. The candidates should be informed clearly about the availability of Hindi medium for written examination and interview well in advance through circular/advertisement as the case may be.”
Learned counsel has also taken pains to canvass that when the policy has been formulated by the Department of Official Languages and this being in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Promotion Policy framed by the respondent-Bank is violative of the constitutional mandate. On a perusal of the aforesaid Programme, we do not find anything prohibiting English to be retained as a subject in any examination. Therefore, we do not find provisions laying down qualifying marks in the departmental examinations anyway subversive of the constitutional provision.
On a perusal of the Promotion Policy, we find that it has been brought to existence by way of settlement. A settlement has been reached by the majority of the Employees’ Union with the Management. As per provision of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act it is binding on both the parties unless revoked in accordance with law. Indubitably, the settlement has not been revoked. The petitioner is bound by it. As the settlement is not violative of any of the provision of the Constitution of the Official Languages Act or for that matter, any public policy, we are unable to release the petitioner from the said settlement.
11. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the Writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.