JUDGMENT
A.D. Singh, J.
(1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order of the Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd., (for short “the bank”) first respondent dated December 2, 1992 and a letter of the third respondent dated November 26,1992 as a result of which his services with the bank were terminated. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:
(2) The petitioner applied to the bank for the post of clerk-cum-cashier/Field Inspector. In the application he mentioned his educational qualification as under: Intermediate – Delhi Board 1983 B.A. Maithili University Darbhanga -1987 Purusant to his application the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Cashier by the Bank on April 6,1990. He joined duty on May 2, 1990. On August 13, 1991 the bank issued a memo. dated August 13, 1991 to the petitioner. This memo directed him to produce the original certificates of his educational qualifications within ten days. On August 24, 1991 the bank again issued a memo. to the petitioner wherein it was stated that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite certificates and the university from which he allegedly graduated does not exist and/or was not a recognised one. Therefore the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation in this regard. The petitioner responded to the memo. by letter dated August 29,1981 and stated that so far he had not received the original degree from the university though he had made a request in this behalf to it. He also stated that he had not committed any misconduct nor had he furnished any false documents. On November 9.11.1991 the bank again issued amemo, to the petitioner bringing to his notice that Maithili University was not a recognised University as ascertained from the list of Universities in India supplied by the University Grants Commission. Besides a news item appearing in Nav Bharat Times Daily dated June 27, 1991 was also referred to in this regard. The petitioner in his reply to the memo. submitted that the university was widely known as recognised one. Many clerks, clerk cum cashier and even officers who were having only intermediate as their qualification were working in the bank since long. He also averred that Graduation was not an essential qualification for appointment to the post of clerk and clerk-cum-cashier. In these circumstances he requested that his services should not be terminated. On November 26,1992 third respondent. Joint Registrar (Banking) in the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi wrote to the bank informing the latter about the petitioner and one Jitender Sharma of having submitted false degrees for purposes of securing employment. The petitioner was asked to terminate the services of the said employees. The respondent thereafter on December 2, 1992 terminated the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the letter of the third respondent dated November 26,1992 and the letter of the bank dated December 2, 1992, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On February 18, 1993 the Division Bench issued show cause notice to the respondents. In response to the notice the bank filed a counter affidavit in which it was, inter alia, stated that the petitioner represented at the time of his employment to the bank that he was a graduate and produced photo copies of the certificates of 12th standard from Central Board of Secondary Education and Mark sheet of B.A. Final from Maithili University, Darbhanga. However, at that point of time no original certificates were produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed time and again to submit the original B.A. degree. The bank also averred that the petitioner obtained his employment with it on making a false representation of being a Graduate from a recognised university but enquiry revealed that the Maithili University was not recognised. The bank also asserted that he minimum educational qualification required for direct recruitment to the post of clerk cum cashier was Graduation. In this regard a reference has been made to Rule 4 of the Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank (Staff) Rules, 1976 (for short “Rules”), according to which the minimum qualification for the clerical cadre has been laid down as Graduation. Further attention has been invited to Rule 6(2) of the Rules which lays down that the recruitment to all the posts shall be made in accordance with the rules that may be framed by the Board of Directors from time to time. In so far as the assertion of the petitioner that certain persons who were not graduates were still working on the post of clerk-cum-cashier, it is stated in the additional affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer of the bank dated April 19, 1994 that no direct recruit who was not a graduate has been appointed as a clerk cum cashier after the Rules came into force. It is pointed out therein that only four employees who were initially appointed as peons were promoted to the post of clerk on their rendering ten years service as peons in pursuance of the Board Resolution No. 6(1) dated September 28, 1987 after they passed the matric/higher secondary examination. Along with the affidavit an extract from the said resolution of the Board has been filed. The relevant portion of the resolution reads as under: “xx xxxxxxxxx x” Promotion of Sub. Staff Employees of 4th class cadre (Subordinate Staff) may be considered for promotion in accordance with Board decision dated 30.8.86 provided they have passed Matric/Higher Secondary examinations and have completed service for a minimum period of ten years out of Reserved quota which may be fixed at 5% of the exist.”
(3) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the perusal of the counter affidavit and the additional affidavit of the bank that the degree of the petitioner was not from a recognised university and the minimum qualification for the direct recruits to the post of clerk-cum-cashier is a degree from a recognised university. Rule 4 of the Rules has been cited in support of the stand of the bank. This rule reads as under: 4. “QUALIFICATION:The minimum qualification for clerical case to be recreated would be Graduation and for peons 8th standard class.”
(4) Thus it is clear from the above rule that the minimum qualification for the post of clerk-cum-cashier is Graduation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to assail the fact that the degree of the petitioner from the Maithili University was not a recognised one. He, however, submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the third respondent before issuing the directive of November 26, 1992. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not comment itself to us. It is not disputed that memos were sent by the bank to the petitioner for the purpose of securing his explanation in regard to the question whether or not the degree obtained by him was from a recognised university. The said memos are filed by the petitioner himself as annexures P-3 and P-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner also submitted his explanation by means of letters dated August 29, 1991 and November 26, 1991 which are Annexures P-4 and P-6 to the writ petition. According to the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition he has stand of the petitioner in the writ petition he has not produced any false document. Besides he stated that Maithili University was widely known as recognised one. He also asserted that many clerks-cum-cashier who are only having intermediate as their qualification are working in the bank since long. The explanation therefore would show that the petitioner did not claim therein that Maithili University to be a recognised one or he was having a degree from a recognised university.
(5) The explanation of the petitioner was merely based on his impression. On the other hand, we find that the bank has categorically stated in one of the memos that Maithili University does not find place in the list of recognised universities issued by the University Grants Commission. The impugned letter dated November 26, 1992 of third respondent also therefore cannot be faulted as it also proceeds on the basis that the degree of the petitioner was not from a recognised university.
(6) The other question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that some clerks with lesser qualifications than prescribed in Rule 4 of the Service Rules 1976 were still working in the bank. The bank has given the explanation that none of the clerks with qualification less than graduation was appointed by means of direct recruitment after the rules came into force. The bank, however, admitted that there were four persons who were promoted as clerks in the year 1987 with Matriculation/Intermediate as their qualification on completion of ten years of service. This was done in consonance with a resolution of the Board of Directors of the bank. The competence of the Directors to pass the resolution is not under challenge. The Board fixed quota of 5% for promotion from amongst 4th class employees, which seems to be a reasonable one.
(7) In view of the abovediscussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.