Kerala High Court
Alphin George vs Institute Of Banking
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/30TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 2338 of 2013 (N)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
ALPHIN GEORGE,
S/O.GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 23 YEARS,
PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
NEAR FIRE STATION, PALA.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA).
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. INSTITUTE OF BANKING
PERSONAL SELECTION (IBPS), IBPS HOUSE, 90 FEET,
D.P.ROAD, OFF.WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
KANDANVELI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
2. THE INTERVIEW BOARD,
IBPS, CANARA BANK BUILDING, SPENCER JUNCTION,
M.G.ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 039,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,
SRI.P.GOPINATH,
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS,
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI,
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19-02-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.4402/2013, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C). NO.2338/2013-N:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MAHATMA
GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 2.6.12.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST SHOWING THE AGGREGATE MARKS
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR COMMON WRITTEN
EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF INTERVIEW OBTAINED FROM INTERNET.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Prv.
"C.R."
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.2338 & 4402 OF 2013
--------------------------
Dated this the 19thday of February, 2013
J U D G M E N T
A common issue arises in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 underwent the B.Tech degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering from St.Joseph's College of Engineering Technology, Pala, a college affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. He appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech degree examination that was held in November, 2011 with register No.932075. The results were declared sometime in April, 2012. Thereupon, the original of Ext.P2 mark list dated 20.4.2012 was issued setting out the aggregate of the marks secured by him in all the eight semester examinations. Thereafter, the original of Ext.P1 degree certificate was issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University certifying that the petitioner has been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Technology under Electronics and Communication branch, he having been certified by duly appointed examiners to be qualified to receive the same and having been placed by them in the first class at the examination held in November, 2011.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013 underwent the WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 2 B.Tech degree course in Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering from T.K.M.Insitute of Technology, Karuvelil, Kollam, a college affiliated to the Cochin University of Science and Technology, during the period 2006-2010. Though she completed the course of study in April, 2010, she passed the combined 1st and 2nd semester examination and the 5th semester examination, in the examinations held in June, 2011. She appeared for and passed the 3rd semester examination in the examination held in November, 2011. Thereupon, the original of Ext.P2 provisional degree certificate dated 11.6.2012 was issued by the Controller of Examinations, Cochin University of Science and Technology certifying that she has passed the B.Tech degree examination in November, 2011 and has qualified for the award of Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering and is placed in the first class. Later, the original of Ext.P3 degree certificate was issued certifying that the petitioner has been awarded the Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering she having undergone the prescribed course of study and having been certified by duly appointed examiners to be qualified to receive it and placed by them in the first class at the examination held in November, 2011. The original of Ext.P1 mark list was also issued to the petitioner setting out the marks secured by her WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 3 in the 8th semester examination held in April, 2010 and the aggregate of the marks secured by her in the other semester examinations.
4. The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (hereinafter referred to as "the IBPS" for short), which is joined as the first respondent in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 and as the second respondent in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013, is an autonomous body authorised by the Indian Bank's Association and by the 19 public sector banks listed below to conduct the Common Written Examination (hereinafter referred to as "the CWE" for short), which is a pre-requisite for selection of personnel for Probationary Officer/Management Trainee posts in the said public sector banks.
Allahabad Bank Indian Overseas Bank
Andhra Bank Oriental Bank of Commerce
Bank of Baroda Punjab National Bank
Bank of India Punjab & Sind Bank
Bank of Maharashtra Syndicate Bank
Canara Bank UCO Bank
Central Bank of India Union Bank of India
Corporation Bank United Bank of India
Dena Bank Vijaya Bank
Indian Bank
5. The IBPS conducts the CWE twice a year. The second
Common Written Examination for the year 2012 was conducted on 17.6.2012 at different centres in India pursuant to the notification WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 4 dated 28.2.2012 issued by the Director of IBPS, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 and as Ext.P9 in W.P. (C).No.4402 of 2013. In Ext.P3 it is inter alia stipulated that prospective candidates should ensure that they fulfill the eligibility criteria specified by IBPS before applying for the CWE. It is also stipulated that the eligibility criteria specified in Ext.P3 are the basic criteria for applying to various public sector banks, that by merely applying for the CWE and appearing for and qualifying in the examination does not imply that a candidate will necessarily be eligible for employment in all or any of the 19 public sector banks as each bank will stipulate its own eligibility/qualifying criteria. It is also stated that each participating public sector bank will independently issue a separate recruitment notification, specifying their vacancies and stipulating their respective eligibility criteria in respect of age, educational qualification, experience (if any), minimum required level of IBPS score in each component test plus total weighted standard score (if any) etc. It is also stipulated that the candidates who are successful in the CWE who have been issued scorecards and who meet the stipulated eligibility criteria will then be required to apply to any of the participating banks they wish to, quoting their personal details and their CWE scores, that each bank will then individually shortlist WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 5 candidates and carry out their own selection process.
6. One of the stipulations in Ext.P3 notification is that the candidate should have completed 20 years of age as on 1.1.2012 and should not have completed 30 years of age as on that date. However, the notification provides for relaxation of upper age limit i.e., 5 years for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, 3 years for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (Non- Creamy Layer), 10 years for persons with disabilities, 5 years for Ex- servicemen and other categories of candidates named therein, 5 years for persons ordinarily domiciled in the Kashmir Division of the State of Jammu & Kashmir during the period 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1989, 5 years for persons affected by the 1984 riots, 5 years for persons who have completed five years of service in RRBs and 6 years in case of clerical employees of the participating public sector banks. As regards educational qualifications it is stipulated that as on 1.1.2012 the candidate should possess a degree in any discipline from a recognised University or any equivalent qualification recognized as such by the Central Government. In the last page of Ext.P3 notification it is stipulated that the start date for online registration is 9.3.2012, online payment of application fees can be made between 9.3.2012 to 30.3.2012 (both dates inclusive), offline payment of application fees WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 6 can be made between 12.3.2012 to 7.4.2012 (both dates inclusive), the last date for online registration is 30.3.2012, the last date for editing the application (prior to submission of the online application) is 1.4.2012, that the call letter can be downloaded after 4.6.2012 and the tentative date of the written examination is 17.6.2012.
7. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notification produced in W.P.(C).No. 2338 of 2013 the petitioners in these writ petitions applied in time. Call letters were issued to them inviting them to appear for the examination that was held on 17.6.2012. Ext.P4 produced in W.P.(C). No.2338 of 2013 is the call letter issued in that regard to the petitioner therein. Since both the petitioners secured the minimum standardized score in each of the tests, they were called to appear for the interview that was scheduled to be held on 21.1.2013 in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 and on 22.1.2013 in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013. The venue was Canara Bank, Circle Office, Canara Bank Building, Spencer Junction, M.G.Road, Trivandrum. Exts.P5 and P6 call letters produced in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 and W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013 respectively, establish the said fact. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 has averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that though he appeared for the interview on 21.1.2013 in terms of Ext.P5 call letter, he was not WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 7 allowed to participate in the interview on the ground that the degree certificate and the mark list issued to him are issued after 1.1.2012 and therefore, he did not possess the prescribed qualification as on 1.1.2012. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013 has averred that though she appeared for the interview pursuant to Ext.P6 call letter, when the result was published on the website of the IBPS, it was declared that she has been found ineligible for recruitment as per the documents submitted by her. Ext.P7 print out is produced in support of the said averment.
8. W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 was filed on 22.1.2013 aggrieved by the stand taken by the IBPS that the petitioner is ineligible to appear for the CWE or to participate in the interview. Relying on Ext.P1 degree certificate it is contended that as the 8th semester examination was held in November, 2011 and it is declared that the petitioner has passed the said examination, he should be deemed to have passed the examination on the date on which the last of the 8th semester examinations was held and not on the date of issue of the certificate and therefore, the respondents erred in proceeding on the basis that he did not possess the prescribed education qualification as on the stipulated date namely, 1.1.2012. A similar contention is raised in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013. When W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 came up WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 8 for admission hearing before me on 23.1.2013, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was permitted to appear for the written test that was held on 17.6.2012, had qualified in the written test and was also called to attend the interview that was scheduled to be held on 21.1.2013, I passed an interim order directing the Chairman of the Interview Board to provisionally interview him subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The interim order passed by me on 23.1.2013 in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 is extracted below:
"Admit. Issue urgent notice returnable in 10 days to the first respondent. Issue notice to the second respondent by special messenger at the petitioner's expense.
2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to appear for the written test that was held on 17.6.2012, had qualified in the written test and was also called to attend the interview that was scheduled to be held on 21.1.2013, as can be seen from Ext.P5 call letter, but was not interviewed on the ground that the result of the B.Tech degree examination was published only after 1.1.2012, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to provisionally interview the petitioner.
I accordingly direct the respondents to provisionally interview the petitioner subject to the outcome of the writ petition on the petitioner appearing before the second respondent, the Chairman of the Interview Board with a copy of this order, as the last among the candidates to be interviewed on 24.1.2013 or any other day, if the interview does not come to a close on 24.1.2013. If the petitioner is not interviewed on 24.1.2013 and he is required to attend the interview on any other day, the Chairman of the Board shall give intimation to him in writing in that regard."
9. W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013 was filed on 13.2.2013 and it came WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 9 up for admission hearing on 15.2.2013. On that day, I directed it to be posted on 18.2.2013 along with W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013. Though the writ petitions came up before me yesterday (18.2.2013), they were adjourned to this day for final hearing and were heard.
10. I heard Sri.George Cherian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 and Sri.Avaneesh Koyikkara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013, Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent and Dr.Thushara James, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as the last of the examinations which the petitioners had passed was held in November, 2011 and in the degree certificates issued to them it is certified that they have passed the examination held in November, 2011, it should be deemed that they possessed the prescribed educational qualification, namely a degree in any discipline as on 1.1.2012, the date stipulated in the notification. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as they were permitted to appear for the CWE and had cleared it and were also called for the interview, the stand taken by the IBPS that they did not possess the prescribed educational qualification as on the specified date cannot be sustained. WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 10
11. Per contra, Dr.Thushara James, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in U.P.Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Another v. Alpana [(1994) 2 SCC 723], Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997) 4 SCC 18], Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC
54) and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Another [(2007) 10 SCC 260] that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed educational qualification as on 1.1.2012, the date stipulated in the notification, that they have not produced any material to show that the result of the examination held in November, 2011 was declared before the stipulated date i.e., 1.1.2012 and therefore, as the petitioners have not proved that they possessed the prescribed educational qualification as on 1.1.2012, the date specified in the notification, the mere fact that they were allowed to participate in the written test based on the statement made by them in the application form that they possess the prescribed educational qualification, is not a reason to hold that as on the specified date they possessed the prescribed educational qualification.
12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 11 the pleadings and the materials on record. In Ext.P3 notification produced in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013, which is same as Ext.P9 produced in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013, it is stipulated in express terms that the candidates should possess the prescribed educational qualification, namely a degree in any discipline from a recognised University or any equivalent qualification recognised as such by the Central Government, as on 1.1.2012. Though the petitioners contend that as they had appeared for and passed the qualifying examination conducted by the respective universities in November, 2011 it should be deemed that they passed the examination in November, 2011 itself, they have not produced any material to show that the result of the examinations for which they had appeared in November, 2011 were published immediately prior to 1.1.2012. Though the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4402 of 2013 has produced Ext.P8 certificate dated 23.1.2013 issued by the Controller of Examinations, Cochin University of Science and Technology to the effect that she had completed the B.Tech degree in November, 2011, the said certificate does not disclose the date on which the result of the examination held in November, 2011 was published.
13. The Apex Court has in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997) 4 SCC 18] while WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 12 considering two review petitions seeking a review of the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another (1993 Supp (2) SCC 611) held that where applications are called prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates has to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone and a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. It was held that an advertisement or notification issued or published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority constituting it is bound by such representation and cannot act contrary to it. The Apex Court held that just because some persons had applied, if they had not acquired the prescribed qualification on the prescribed date, they cannot be given any preference. The decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another (1993 Supp (2) SCC 611) was rendered in respect of a notification dated 9.6.1982 whereby applications were invited for the post of Junior Engineer in the service of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The last date stipulated for submission of applications was 15.7.1982. A pass in B.E.(Civil) examination was the minimum academic/technical qualification required for applying for the post. A large number of persons applied WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 13 pursuant to the said advertisement. 33 among the applicants had appeared for the B.E.(Civil) examination before 15.7.1982, but the results were published on 21.8.1982. The interviews were held from 24.8.1982 onwards. Though the 33 candidates were not qualified as on the specified date, they were interviewed and selected. Their selection was challenged in W.P.(C).No.250 of 1983 filed in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir contending that they had not acquired the requisite qualification as on the prescribed date namely 15.7.1982. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment delivered on 27.5.1983. No appeal was taken from the said judgment and it attained finality. Later, 4 other candidates filed W.P.(C).No.483 of 1983 in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir questioning the selection of the said 33 candidates. While the said writ petition was pending, appointment orders were issued based on the select list. The petitioners in W.P.(C). No.483 of 1983 were placed above the 33 candidates, whose selection they had questioned. Later, on 5.9.1984, another batch of selected candidates was appointed. W.P.(C).No.483 of 1983 was dismissed following the order dated 27.5.1983 dismissing W.P.(C).No.250 of 1983. An appeal was taken before a Division Bench and it was allowed by judgment dated 13.12.1991. The Division Bench held that the 33 candidates could not have been allowed to appear in the interview for WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 14 the reason that they had not acquired the requisite academic/technical qualification by the prescribed date. The Division Bench however directed that the appointment of the said 33 candidates need not be set aside, but they should be treated as junior to all those selected persons who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. The 33 candidates and the State of Jammu & Kashmir moved the Apex Court. By judgment delivered on 18.12.1992 in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another [(1993 Supp (2) SCC 611], the Apex Court held that the 33 candidates were not entitled to be called for the interview. However the Apex Court did not disturb the selection of the 33 candidates having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances set out in detail in the judgment.
14. That decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another [(1993 Supp (2) SCC 611] was later reviewed at the instance of the 4 candidates who had filed W.P.(C). No.483 of 1983 in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, by the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997) 4 SCC 18]. One of the questions that arose for consideration before the Apex Court in the review petition was whether opinion of the majority in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another [(1993 Supp (2) SCC 611] that it is WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 15 enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview, even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct or not. Though the review petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, the Apex Court held as follows:
"6. The review petitions came up for final hearing on 3.3.1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1.9.1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr.T.K.Thommen and V.Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualification by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 16 respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of Law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.
7. Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 33 candidates, submitted that these 33 candidates had appeared for the B.E.Examination prior to their applying for the post and that there was some delay in publishing the results and that these respondents cannot be punished for the delay on the part of the authorities concerned in publishing the results. In our opinion, the said contention is beside the point. In these proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons for delay - assuming that there was delay in publishing the results. That issue is outside the purview of the writ petition. Whatever may be the reason, the 33 persons were not qualified as on the prescribed date and therefore, could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. On the first issue (mentioned in the order dated 1.9.1995), therefore we hold in favour of the review petitioners, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J."
15. The Apex Court held that as the 33 persons were not qualified as on the prescribed date, they could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. It was held that where applications are called for, prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone and that a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The very same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC 54) wherein after a survey of the WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 17 case law on the point, including the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997) 4 SCC 18], the Apex Court held as follows:
"20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut- off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application."
16. In U.P.Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Another v. Alpana [(1994) 2 SCC 723] the Apex Court considered the question whether a candidate who had appeared for the Law degree examination before 20.8.1988, the last date fixed for receipt of application and was awaiting the results which was declared only in October, 1988 was qualified to apply and held as follows:
"6. In the facts of the present case we fail to appreciate how the ratio of the said decision of this Court, can be attracted. The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of application was August 20, 1988. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. The High Court in Writ Petition No.1898 of 1991 mandated the Public Service Commission to interview her but directed to withhold the result until further orders. In obedience to the direction of the High Court the Public Service Commission interviewed her but her result was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court while WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 18 disposing of the matter finally directed the Public Service Commission to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name for appointment. The High Court even went to the length of ordering the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of application. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In the instant case, the petitioners have not produced any material to show that the result of the B.Tech degree examination which was held in November 2011 was published prior to 1.1.2012, the date stipulated in Ext.P3 notification. They have not produced any material to show that on the date stipulated in the notification, they possessed the prescribed education qualification. On the other hand, Ext.P2 mark list produced by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 would show that the result of the examination held in November, WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 19 2011 was published only in April, 2012. The degree certificates were also issued after 1.1.2012. In short, there is no material before this Court to hold that as on 1.1.2012, the petitioners possessed the prescribed education qualification namely a degree in any discipline from a recognised university or any equivalent qualification recognised as such by the Central Government. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the IBPS that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed educational qualification as on 1.1.2012 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. The participation of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2338 of 2013 in the interview held on 24.1.2013 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, shall stand cancelled. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 20 WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 21 WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 22 P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2338 OF 2013
--------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2013 O R D E R Admit. Issue urgent notice returnable in 10 days to the first respondent. Issue notice to the second respondent by special messenger at the petitioner's expense.
2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to appear for the written test that was held on 17.6.2012, had qualified in the written test and was also called to attend the interview that was scheduled to be held on 21.1.2013, as can be seen from Ext.P5 call letter, but was not interviewed on the ground that the result of the B.Tech degree examination was published only after 1.1.2012, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to provisionally interview the petitioner.
I accordingly direct the respondents to provisionally interview the petitioner subject to the outcome of the writ petition on the petitioner appearing before the second respondent, the Chairman of the Interview Board with a copy of this order, as the last among the candidates to be interviewed on 24.1.2013 or any other day, if the interview does not come to a close on 24.1.2013. If the petitioner is WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 23 not interviewed on 24.1.2013 and he is required to attend the interview on any other day, the Chairman of the Board shall give intimation to him in writing in that regard.
Handover a copy of this order to both sides on usual terms today itself.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 24