Mandatory eligibility for workman directors upheld as a threshold qualification preserving board continuity and representative governance.

A statutory qualification for nomination as a workman director in nationalised banks was held mandatory, not directory, because it operates at the threshold of eligibility and is designed to secure continuity and effective representation on the board. The disqualification did not conflict with the provision fixing the director's term of office, since eligibility for nomination and tenure of office address different stages and can be read harmoniously. Different treatment of workman directors and officer directors was not hostile discrimination, as the two categories are appointed through distinct statutory processes. Past administrative deviations could not control interpretation or dilute the mandatory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clause disqualifying a workman from nomination as director unless he is unlikely to attain superannuation during the term of office is mandatory or merely directory; (ii) whether that disqualification conflicts with the provision fixing the term of office of a workman director; (iii) whether the different treatment of workman directors and officer directors amounts to hostile discrimination; and (iv) whether past departures from the requirement or administrative practice could control the interpretation of the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the clause disqualifying a workman from nomination as director unless he is unlikely to attain superannuation during the term of office is mandatory or merely directory.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing constitution of the board of nationalised banks uses imperative language and creates a qualifying condition for nomination to the office of workman director. The provision is intended to ensure continuity in the board and to secure a nominee who can meaningfully serve for the expected term. The clause operates as a qualification at the stage of nomination and is not a mere procedural guideline.

Conclusion: The clause is mandatory and not directory.

Issue (ii): Whether that disqualification conflicts with the provision fixing the term of office of a workman director.

Analysis: The provision prescribing the term of office deals with the duration for which a duly nominated director may hold office, while the disqualification clause governs eligibility for nomination in the first place. The two provisions address different stages and can operate together without inconsistency. Harmonious construction requires both clauses to be given effect so that the board remains representative and the nominee is capable of completing the intended tenure.

Conclusion: There is no conflict, and the disqualification validly co-exists with the term-of-office provision.

Issue (iii): Whether the different treatment of workman directors and officer directors amounts to hostile discrimination.

Analysis: The two categories are not similarly situated. The officer-director is appointed through a different statutory process involving consultation and the procedure under the relevant schedule, while the workman-director is nominated from a panel furnished by the representative union. The distinction flows from the scheme itself and from the different modes of representation. A claim of discrimination cannot succeed without parity of legal footing, and past deviations do not create an enforceable right to repetition of a wrong.

Conclusion: The challenge based on discrimination fails.

Issue (iv): Whether past departures from the requirement or administrative practice could control the interpretation of the scheme.

Analysis: Executive practice or occasional deviations cannot govern the construction of a statutory scheme. Interpretation must rest on the text, purpose, and legislative intent, not on an understanding adopted by implementing authorities. A contrary practice cannot override a mandatory provision or justify further departures from the scheme.

Conclusion: Past practice does not alter the statutory meaning or dilute the requirement.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme was construed as requiring eligible workman nominees who can ordinarily serve the prescribed tenure, and the petition challenging rejection of the proposed nominations therefore failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory scheme prescribes a qualifying condition for nomination to public office, that condition is mandatory if it is designed to secure continuity and effective representation, and it must be given effect through harmonious construction even if it limits eligibility at the threshold.

---