1. Candidate disqualified from bank recruitment for failing to produce a valid caste certificate within the prescribed period — Challenge to maintainability of Writ Petition against recruitment agency. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 510
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH – Appellant(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING
PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 4455 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18201 of 2015)
Decided On : 29-04-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is not a State under Article 12.
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is not discharging any public duty, hence writ petition against it is not maintainable.
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is not a State under Article 12.
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is not discharging any public duty, hence writ petition against it is not maintainable.
Subject
Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India - Article 12 - State - Institute of Banking Personnel Selection whether State - Governor of Reserve Bank of India and Chairmen of certain Public Sector Banks along with Joint Secretary, Banking Division, Ministry of Finance members of governing body of the Respondent-Institute - Respondent not constituted under a statute - Respondent not receiving any funds from the Government and not controlled by Government - No deep and pervasive control by Government - Respondent-institute held not State within the meaning of Article 12. (Para 8)
(2002) 5 SCC 111 - Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition - Whether respondent-institute an ‘other authority’ - Not confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State - May cover any other person or body performing public duty - Writ Petition maintainable even against a private body discharging public functions - Instantly Respondent not a creature of a statute - No statutory duties or obligations imposed on the Respondent - Conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions not a public duty - Held writ petition against respondent was not maintainable. (Para 9, 12, 14)
(1989) 2 SCC 691; (2015) 4 SCC 670 - Relied upon
[1987] 1 Q.B. 815 (C.A.); [1967] 2 Q.B. 864; (1981) 1 SCC 722; (1979) 3 SCC 489; (2005) 4 SCC 649; (2015) 16 SCC 530 - Referred
Facts of the case:
On 12.08.2013 an advertisement was issued by the Respondent inviting applications for appointment to posts of clerical cadre (Clerk-III) in Public Sector Banks. The Appellant participated in a Common Written Examination (CWE) and secured 110 marks out of 200. During the interview, he submitted a caste certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar which shows that he belongs to Ahir community, which is recognized as Other Backward Class. Another caste certificate was issued to the Appellant by the Naib Tehsildar declaring him as an OBC candidate belonging to Ahir community and that he does not belong to the ‘creamy layer’. The Appellant was informed that his candidature for the examination has been cancelled as he could not produce the required certificate at the time of the interview. As per the advertisement, the candidates belonging to OBC category were required to produce a certificate issued during the period 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2015. The Appellant could not produce the certificate issued during the said period for which reason he was disqualified from participating further in the selection process.
The Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the proceeding by which he was disqualified from the selection process, for appointment to the post of Clerk, which was dismissed by the High Court as not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
High court rightly held that writ petition against respondent institute was not maintainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh B.Dial, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. Ms. Ritu Arora, Adv. Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh B.Dial, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. Ms. Ritu Arora, Adv. Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the recruitment agency constitutes State under Article 12 due to government control or is amenable to writ jurisdiction for performing public functions. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The agency lacks pervasive government control to be State under Article 12, and conducting recruitment tests for banks does not constitute a public duty under Article 226. (Para 8 , 14 , 15 )
4. A private body is amenable to writ jurisdiction only if it performs a public duty; conducting recruitment tests for banks is a voluntary activity, not a public function. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Writ Petition held not maintainable against the respondent. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. When is a corporation or society considered State under Article 12 of the Constitution?
A body is considered State if it is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the pervasive control of the Government. Control that is merely regulatory is insufficient to classify a body as State. (Para 8 )
7. How does the scope of authority under Article 226 differ from that under Article 12?
Article 226 confers a more liberal meaning of authority than Article 12. While Article 12 is for enforcing fundamental rights, Article 226 covers any person or body performing a public duty, regardless of whether they are statutory instrumentalities of the State. (Para 9 )
8. Does conducting recruitment tests for banks and financial institutions constitute a public duty?
No. Conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions is considered a voluntary activity and does not constitute a public duty or function, making such agencies not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. On 12.08.2013 an advertisement was issued by the Respondent inviting applications for appointment to posts of clerical cadre (Clerk-III) in Public Sector Banks. The Appellant participated in a Common Written Examination (CWE) conducted on 01.10.2013 and secured 110 marks out of 200. He was called for an interview by the Respondent on 14.02.2014. During the interview, he submitted a caste certificate dated 28.10.2010, issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Nangal Chowdhary, Haryana which shows that he belongs to Ahir community, which is recognized as Other Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OBC’) as per the Resolutions of the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India. Another caste certificate was issued in the prescribed format to the Appellant by the Naib Tehsildar, Nangal Chowdhary, Haryana on 29.01.2014, declaring him as an OBC candidate belonging to Ahir community and that he does not belong to the ‘creamy layer’. The results were announced on 01.04.2014 and the Appellant was informed that his candidature for the examination has been cancelled as he could not produce the required certificate at the time of the interview. As per the advertisement, the candidates belonging to OBC category were required to produce a certificate issued during the period 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2015. The Appellant could not produce the certificate issued during the said period for which reason he was disqualified from participating further in the selection process.
2. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the proceeding dated 01.04.2014 by which he was disqualified from the selection process, for appointment to the post of Clerk, which was dismissed by the High Court as not maintainable. Hence, this appeal.
3. The High Court relied upon a judgment in Writ Petition (L) No.1042 of 2014 and others to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant. The judgment in Writ Petition (L) No.1042 of 2014 pertains to a Common Written Examination conducted by the Respondent for recruitment to the posts of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in participating organizations i.e.Public Sector Banks. The High Court was of the view that the Respondent was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and there was no public function that was discharged by the Respondent. On said grounds, the High Court opined that the Respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that in the year 1975, Personnel 3 Selection Service (PSS), a unit of National Institute of Bank Management (NIBM), was constituted with the objective of developing an efficient system for recruitment, promotion, and placement services to Public Sector Banks. Said PSS unit became an independent entity in the year 1994 and came to be known as the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection i.e.the Respondent herein. The Respondent was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Respondent was recognized as a Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in April, 1984 by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. The Respondent is also an associate member of the Indian Banks Association. Mr. Gupta submitted that the Respondent would fall under the expression “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is deep and pervasive control of the Government over the Respondent. He stated that the governing body of the Respondent-Institute consists of the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India; Joint Secretary to the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; Chairman – State Bank of India; the Chairman and Managing Directors of UCO Bank, Bank of India, Central Bank of
