Patna High Court
Rajiv Nayan & Anr vs The Union Of India & Ors on 11 August, 2016
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10252 of 2013
===========================================================
1. Rajiv Nayan Son Of Sri Arvind Kumar Resident Of At + P.O. Nalanda, Near
Biscoman Godown, P.S.- Nalanda, District- Nalanda
2. Anil Kumar Ghosh Son Of Sri Basudeo Prasad Resident Of At + P.O.- Pirauta,
P.S.- Sirdala, District- Nawada
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Its Chief Secretary Financial Services
2. Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, New Delhi.
3. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection Through Its Managing Director
Having Registered Office At IBPS House, Near Thakur Polytechnic, 90 D.P.
Road, Off Western Express Highway, P.B. No. 8587, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-
400101
4. Director Operations, Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai-400101.
5. Director Client Relations For Public Sector Banks, Kandivali(E), Mumbai-
400101.
6. Director Client Relations For Other Than Public Sector Banks Of Institute Of
Banking Personnel Selection, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.
7. Director, Design And Anaylysis, Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection,
Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.
8. Director, Research And Development, Institute Of Banking Personnel
Selection, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.
9. Director, Processing And Technology, Institute Of Banking Personnel
Selection, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.
10. Director, Support Services, Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Kandivali
(E), Mumbai-400101.
11. Chairman Of The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai-400101.
12. Secretary Of The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai-400101.
13. Chief Secretary, Department Of Science And Technology Govt. Of India , New
Delhi.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.A. Shamsi
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-08-2016
No one appears for the petitioners. Learned counsel for
the I.B.P.S. is present. Yesterday also i.e. on 10.8.2016, learned
counsel for the petitioner was not present and, on that count, today
this case has been listed for orders.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10252 of 2013 dt.11-08-2016 2
I.B.P.S. is a public trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950, and also the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
It is not a statutory body established under a specialized legislation. It
is a completely autonomous body which is specialized in conducting
test/selection process of personnel to participating banks and other
organizations to fill the reported vacancies.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the
issue of maintainability of the writ application came before different
High Courts and consistently all the High Courts have taken one view
that the writ application is not maintainable. Details has been given in
paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:-
"5. That the writ petition under reply is wholly
misconceived as against respondent no.3 because
IBPS does not fall within the definition of "the state"
as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Respondent/IBPS is a public trust registered
under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and also
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is not a
statutory body established under a specialized
legislation. It is a completely autonomous body which
is specialized in conducting test/selection process of
personnel to participating banks and other
organizations to fill the reported vacancies. It cannot
be said that this is a "public function" as that would
mean every private organization engaged in
recruitment would be subject to writ jurisdiction
under Article 226. It has been held by the Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay vide order dated 7.05.2014
passed in Writ Petition No.(L) 1042 of 2014 that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10252 of 2013 dt.11-08-2016 3
IBPS does not fall within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. Recently in the case of Mr.
Manoj Kumar Vs IBPS (Writ Petition no-2616/2014)
and Mr. Arun Kumar Vs IBPS (Writ Petition no. 2617
/2014) the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held vide
judgments dated 13.11.2014 and 18.11.2014 that the
writ petition is not maintainable against IBPS as it is
not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of
Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Manipur
High Court at IMPHAL in WP(C) No. 245 of 2014
vide its Judgment dated 08.08.2014 had also held
that the Writ Petition was not maintainable against
the answering Respondent. Further, the Delhi High
Court in W.P.(C) 1384/2012 and W.P.(C) 3658/2012
in a controversy whether the petitioner, IBPS is a
public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 has vide its
Judgment dated 15.10.2014 held that the impugned
order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the CIC is set
aside. Further, The Hon'ble High of Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Indore in WP. No. 3023 of 2014
vide Judgment dated 09.03.2015 has also held that a
writ is not maintainable against the respondent
Institute. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi in W.P.(S) No. 2327/2013 (Ruma Rani Sahay
@ Reema Rani Sahay Vs Managing Administration,
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) and
W.P.(S). No 831 of 2014 (Jyoti Kumari & Others Vs.
IBPS) vide its orders dated 21.5.2015 and 31.08.2015
respectively have also considered the stand of IBPS
that a writ is not maintainable against the respondent
IBPS. Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 2211/2016 (Rajesh Pappy
v/s Union of India & Another) vide its order dated
31.03.2016has held that in view of the clear and Patna High Court CWJC No.10252 of 2013 dt.11-08-2016 4 specific stipulation, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Even otherwise also, the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent No.3 is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India." In that view of the matter, this writ application is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.8.2016 Transmission NA Date