Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bhinwa Ram Palaniay vs State Bank Of India on 1 March, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.35/2009 Bhinwa Ram Pilaniya versus State Bank of India 1.3.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ved Prakash for petitioner Mr VS Yadav for respondent BY THE COURT:
Petitioner is an ex-serviceman and applied for Class C post pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Bank. He was called for written examination followed by interview but was not disclosed his merit position and, at the same time, not given information as to whether he is eligible for appointment or not. Petitioner accordingly filed this writ petition specially when required information was not supplied to him under Right to Information Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-R/1, petitioner applied for the post having reservation in favour of ex-servicemen. The minimum qualification prescribed therein was in respect of general/ OBC candidates apart from SC/ST/ PWD candidates. Petitioner is in possession of qualification of matriculation and graduation along with the certificate issued by the Indian Air Force at Annexure-5 thus appeared in the written examination followed by interview. In the aforesaid background, respondents should have declared result of the petitioner and if he finds place in the merit of ex-servicemen then be given appointment. It is for the first time that on filing the reply by the respondent that petitioner is held ineligible for want of 60% marks at the level of matriculation or Senior Secondary. The condition aforesaid is applicable to the general/ OBC candidates and not to the ex-serviceman, accordingly, writ petition may be allowed specially when petitioner was called for written examination and interview thus aforesaid cannot be nullified on the principle of estoppel.
Learned counsel for respondent-Bank, on the other hand submits that petitioner is not eligible for appointment as he falls in OBC category though can seek reservation being ex-serviceman also. He is not having 60% marks at the level of matriculation. The reservation in favour of ex-serviceman and even disabled persons is horizontal in nature thus they are given appointment in the category to which they belong subject to their merit position. The candidature of the petitioner was considered accordingly but he is not having required percentage of marks at the level of matriculation thus held to be ineligible.
So far as appearance in written examination and interview is concerned, respondent bank invariably allow every one to appear because scrutiny of the applications is not made at the initial stage keeping in mind volume of applications. It is made at the stage when result is declared to find out as to whether person falling in merit is eligible or not. The principle of estoppel does not apply in this case more so when rule provides for minimum percentage of marks in matriculation. Accordingly, case is not made out in favour of the petitioner. If result was not made known to him, it was on account of his ineligibility.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
Perusal of the advertisement shows as to what would be required qualification of a candidate. The relevant clause 3 of the advertisement is quoted hereunder for ready reference -
3. Educational Qualification (as on 01.10.2007)
a) A degree in any discipline from a recognised University or any equivalent qualification recognised by the Central Government with minimum 50% marks. Besides, the candidate should have obtained minimum 60% marks in the matriculation (Class X) or in intermediate (10+2) examination, as detailed hereunder : -
Compulsory qualification General/ OBC SC/ST/PWD candidates Class X or Class XII 60.00% 55.00% Graduation 50.00% 45.00%
b) Should be able to write and speak English fluently.
c) Knowledge of other Indian language will be an added qualification.
Perusal of the quoted portion reveals that a candidate is required to possess qualification as given above and there is no exemption for a candidate belonging to ex-servicemen quota. The advertisement contains requirement of educational qualification with percentage of marks. It is not a case of the petitioner that rule/ settlement does not provide qualification for ex-servicemen with minimum marks, rather, educational qualification is provided with required percentage of marks. It cannot be said that for ex-servicemen, no minimum percentage of marks are required in the qualification rather no concession is given in requisite qualification with percentage of marks as indicated above. Petitioner is not having 60% of marks in matriculation or senior secondary level. Accordingly, he has been held to be ineligible for appointment.
The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that when petitioner was called for written examination and interview then respondent bank was under an obligation to declare his result is considered, I find that mere calling for written examination and interview does not mean that requirement of minimum qualification is dispensed with. It is invariably seen that while conducting selection, on receipt of large number of applications, scrutiny of eligibility is made after first phase of selection and, at times, even after second phase of selection. This is to save time as well as exercise to scrutinise every application at the initial stage. If the respondent bank allowed petitioner to appear in the written examination and interview without scrutiny of his application, it cannot be to the benefit of the petitioner contrary to the requirement of minimum qualification with percentage of marks as per rules thus principle of estoppel does not apply. The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory provisions.
In the aforesaid background, even if petitioner was called for written examination and interview, an indefinite right is not created for his selection and appointment.
In view of aforesaid, writ petition is found devoid of merit, hence, dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent bank may be directed to declare marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut off marks of ex-servicemen category.
For the aforesaid purpose, petitioner has already approached respondent bank under Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, he would be at liberty to take proper legal recourse under the aforesaid Act by approaching the Commissioner, Information if the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not entertained and accepted.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J