Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Anil Kumar Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, The Allahabad Bank & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 138 of 2012
Decided On : 17-02-2014
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha.
The decision of the bank to select candidates for the post of Probationary Officer was based on the recruitment policy already in vogue and was not based on extraneous considerations.
Headnote:
Qualifying Marks - Selection Process - 6 - [Objective Tests on Test of Reasoning Ability, Quantitative Aptitude, General Awareness with special reference to Banking Industry, Computer Knowledge & English Language] - The court considered the issue of whether a candidate could be disqualified from final selection on the ground of having secured less marks than the passing marks for interview, though no such passing mark was fixed in the advertisement inviting application. The court held that the action of the respondents in fixing passing marks for interview in the facts and circumstances of the case does not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in the advertisement. The decision of the bank to select only such candidates for the post of Probationary Officer, on the basis of advertisement in question, is based on the recruitment policy already in vogue. There is no material to reach to a conclusion that such decision is based on extraneous considerations. The court found no irregularity in the process of selection on the basis that the passing marks for interview was not disclosed in the advertisement, though it was specifically mentioned that a candidate will have to secure passing marks in interview.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the final result published by the Allahabad Bank for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer, claiming that he was disqualified from final selection on the ground of having secured less marks than the passing marks for interview, though no such passing mark was fixed in the advertisement inviting application.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ application, holding that the action of the respondents in fixing passing marks for interview did not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in the advertisement. The decision of the bank to select candidates for the post of Probationary Officer was based on the recruitment policy already in vogue and was not based on extraneous considerations.
Issues: The main issue was whether a candidate could be disqualified from final selection on the ground of having secured less marks than the passing marks for interview, though no such passing mark was fixed in the advertisement inviting application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the decision of the bank to select candidates for the post of Probationary Officer was based on the recruitment policy already in vogue and was not based on extraneous considerations. The court concluded that there was no irregularity in the process of selection on the basis that the passing marks for interview was not disclosed in the advertisement, though it was specifically mentioned that a candidate will have to secure passing marks in interview.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, finding no irregularity in the process of selection based on the passing marks for interview not being disclosed in the advertisement.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks quashing of final result published by the Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer in the bank declared on 23.06.2011.
3. Before I come to the main controversy involved in the matter, I consider it appropriate to refer to brief facts of the case.
4. Pursuant to advertisement dated 05.02.2011 (annexure-1), the petitioner had submitted his application for his appointment as Probationary Officer in Allahabad Bank as a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category. There is no dispute that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in clause 1, 2 and 4 of the said advertisement in terms of age, minimum educational qualification etc. The selection process comprised written test and interview, as mentioned in clause-6 of the said advertisement. Since clause-6(A) and 6(B) of the said advertisement are at the centre of controversy in the present case, they are being quoted herein below:-
“6. Selection Procedure: The selection process will comprise written test and interview.
(A) Written Test:
(i) The written test will comprise Objective Tests on (i) Test of Reasoning Ability, (ii) Quantitative Aptitude, (iii) General Awareness with special reference to Banking Industry, (iv) Computer Knowledge & (v) English Language
(ii) The passing marks in each of the tests will be decided by the Bank on the basis of the performance of all the competing candidates taken together in each test to a minimum required level. Candidates have to pass in each of the Objective Test separately. Candidates are also required to score a minimum 40% cut-off (35% SC/ST/OBC) marks in aggregate to be considered for being called for interview. Bank reserves the right to vary cut-off marks.
(iii) There will be separate cut-off marks for reserved category candidates with relaxed standards.
(iv) Other details regarding the written test will be given in the „information booklet which will be available in the Banks website alongwith the Call Letter for the Written Test.
Note: There will be negative marks for the wrong answers in the Objective Tests.
(B) Interview:
Depending upon the number of vacancies only a certain number of candidates from among those who qualify by ranking sufficiently high in merit on the basis of aggregate marks in the written test will be called for the interview. The candidate has to secure minimum passing marks in the interview.”
5. The petitioner participated in the written examination held on 17.04.2011 and was declared successful. He was invited to appear in the interview held on 08.06.2011. It is the petitioner’s case that he performed well in the interview also and had, therefore, a legitimate expectation that he would be finally selected. His name, however, did not figure in the merit list of successful candidates as published by the Bank on its website on 23.06.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 sought for the details as regards the marks secured by him subject wise, his rank in the written examination, cut-off marks of the written examination, cut-off marks of the interview, cut-off marks of final selection and his rank in the final merit list.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that after much persuasion and repeated reminders the petitioner was provided with such information by a communication dated 05.11.2011, which is annexure-9 to the present application. It is the petitioner’s case that as per the information supplied to him under Right to Information Act, the petitioner secured 174 marks and the aggregate cut-off marks for final selection (written test+ interview) in OBC category was 171 and aggregate cut-off marks for final selection after release of wait list was 189 for general category, 168 for OBC category, 147 for SC category a
