In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute regarding public duties related to bank personnel selection. The case involved a Writ Petition challenging the actions of the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection in conducting recruitment tests. The Court’s ruling sheds light on the extent of public obligations and government control over entities like the Institute. Stay informed about the legal intricacies and implications of this important decision.
Facts
- Appellant participated in a CWE on 01.10.2013 and scored 110 out of 200 marks.
- Appellant was called for an interview on 14.02.2014.
- Appellant submitted an OBC caste certificate dated 28.10.2010 during the interview.
- Another caste certificate was issued on 29.01.2014, declaring the Appellant as an OBC candidate belonging to the Ahir community and not part of the creamy layer.
- Results were announced on 01.04.2014, informing the Appellant that his candidature was cancelled due to not producing the required certificate during the interview.
- Candidates belonging to the OBC category were required to produce a certificate issued between 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2015, which the Appellant failed to do.
- Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging his disqualification but it was dismissed by the High Court as not maintainable.
- Appellant relied on various judgements to support his case.
- High Court cited several judgements where Writ Petitions filed against the Respondent were dismissed as not maintainable.
- High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant citing that the Respondent was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
- High Court concluded that there was no public function discharged by the Respondent.
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case
Issue
- The core issue to be determined is the maintainability of the Writ Petition against the Respondent on the basis of discharging public duty.
- The question revolves around whether the Writ Petition is justified against the Respondent in their capacity of performing public duties.
- Key focus lies on whether the Petitioner has grounds to challenge the Respondent’s actions as part of their public obligations.
- The crux of the matter is the legality and appropriateness of holding the Respondent accountable for carrying out public duties in the context of the Writ Petition.
Also Read: Case of Technical Equipment Officer Appointment Criteria Dispute
Arguments
- The learned counsel for the Appellant argues that nationalized banks should fall within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
- The Appellant seeks consideration for a Clerk position based on a certificate issued in 2014, as he unintentionally presented one from 2010.
- The Senior Counsel for the Respondent argues that the Respondent is an agency conducting selection processes for various banks and financial institutions, not under administrative control of the Government.
- The High Court ruled that the Respondent is not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The Appellant’s counsel cites the establishment of the Personnel Selection Service (PSS) in 1975 within the National Institute of Bank Management to support their argument.
- The counsel argues that the Appellant is not entitled to relief as he did not participate in previous selections conducted by the Respondent after 2013.
- The Respondent’s deep government control is emphasized through the composition of its governing body and official correspondence indicating administrative approval from the Government of India.
- Alternatively, it is argued that the Respondent-Institute undertakes public functions and duties making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Several judgments of the court are referenced to support the arguments presented by the counsel on both sides.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement on Transfer of Mining Environmental Clearances
Analysis
- Establish and carry on the administration and management of the ‘Institute of Banking Personnel Selection.’
- Plan, promote, and provide competent personnel to banks and financial institutions.
- Assist organizations in personnel areas like recruitment, selection, and placement.
- Conduct examination-related services on request.
- Carry out theoretical and applied research in psychology and education.
- The High Court correctly held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the Respondent.
- There is no statutory or positive obligation on the Respondent to conduct recruitment tests.
- The Respondent is not constituted under a statute and does not receive government funds.
- The voluntary nature of the recruitment process indicates no public function is being discharged by the Respondent.
- The Respondent is not a creature of statute and has no statutory duties imposed on it.
- There is no deep and pervasive control by the Government of India over the Respondent.
- The primary activity of the Respondent is voluntary and does not constitute a public duty.
- There is no government control over the Respondent in the manner required to be considered part of the ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
- The function of the Respondent to conduct selection projects for recruitment does not indicate a public duty.
- The presence of certain government officials in the governing body of the Respondent does not establish government control.
- Despite four recruitments conducted post-2013, the Appellant did not participate in any, indicating a lack of control by the Government over the Respondent.
- Functions similar or closely related to those of the State in its sovereign capacity may be considered public functions.
- The term ‘authority’ in Article 226 of the Constitution must have a liberal interpretation.
- Article 226 allows writs for both fundamental and non-fundamental rights against any person or body performing public duty.
- A writ petition under Article 226 can be filed against a private body if it discharges public functions.
- The nature of duty imposed, whether by statute, common law, custom, or contract, determines the maintainability of a writ petition.
- A body must have a positive obligation to the affected party for it to be considered ‘State’ under Article 12.
- The form of the body is not crucial; the focus should be on financial, functional, and administrative domination or control by the Government.
- Private companies engaged in banking do not perform public duties subject to public law, as ruled in the Federal Bank case.
- The presence of a public element in functions, positive public obligations, and voluntary activities distinguish public duties for writ jurisdiction.
- The nature of power and the source of power are crucial in determining if a dispute involves public or private law.
- Participation in subsequent recruitments by Original Name is necessary to be entitled to relief.
- The Appellant did not participate in any subsequent recruitments.
- Hence, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief.
Decision
- The appeal is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.
Case Title: RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI
Case Number: C.A. No.-004455-004455 / 2019
