The petitioner joined the service of the respondent on 14.01.1997 as a Junior Clerk. According to him, he was promoted as Branch Manager-in-Charge during the year 2009 in the available vacancy. According to him, he has passed BA and has produced Ext.P3 certificate in support of the said claim. However, by Ext.P4, the respondent has informed him that, his certificate was not acceptable without an equivalency certificate from a University in Kerala. The contention of the petitioner is that, Rule 186(1) does not contain any stipulation that the Degree obtained by a candidate should be one supported by an equivalency certificate from a University in Kerala. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the payment of salary to him from 2011 onwards, when he became qualified to be promoted as Branch Manager.
2. Though notice has been served on the respondent, there is no appearance. Therefore, I have heard the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to quash Ext.P4. A perusal of Ext.P4 shows that, it is only a communication issued by the Secretary of the respondent to the petitioner informing him that, the Bank had sought the directions of the Joint W.P.(C)No.12965 of 2014 2 Registrar with regard to the sufficiency of the certificate produced by the petitioner. The Joint Registrar has directed that since the certificate showed the qualification of the petitioner to be a “One Sitting Degree”, a further clarification as to whether the same was equivalent to the Three Year Degree Course has to be ascertained. In this regard, the Co-operative Service Examination Board has been addressed and reply of the said authority is awaited. He has also been informed that his request would be considered only after obtaining the clarification.
3. In view of the fact that Ext.P4 is only a communication informing the petitioner that clarification is awaited from the Co- operative Service Examination Board, I am not satisfied that the same requires to be quashed or set aside. No decision adverse to the petitioner has been taken. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by Ext.P4, which is only a letter.
4. According to Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction to the respondent to accept the Degree of the petitioner is necessary to be issued in view of Ext.P6. As per Ext.P6 the Government have issued instructions that degree of statutory Universities recognised by the Central University Grants Commission are to be automatically recognised. As per Ext.P2, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has been recognised, it is pointed out. However, the question on which clarification has been sought is not W.P.(C)No.12965 of 2014 3 regarding the status of the University but regarding the sufficiency of the Degree Course. The said question has to be answered by the authority competent to conduct such an evaluation and not by this Court. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the petitioner awaits the clarification that has been sought for.
For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P4 or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV