Gujarat High Court
Kamleshkumar Babubhai Rabari vs State Bank Of India on 1 August, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12605 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KAMLESHKUMAR BABUBHAI RABARI
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE assisted by
MRVYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL with
MR ANKEETA RAJPUT and
MR VAIBHAV GOSHANI (707) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 01/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 23
Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined
1. In view of the urgency mentioned by Mr. G.M.Joshi, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vyom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and fairly not objected by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate for the respondent - Bank, this petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent
- Bank.
3. This petition is filed by Probationary Officers of respondent - Bank, challenging the procedure of test introduced by the Bank for assessment of performance of the petitioners before their confirmation. It is case of the petitioners that they had applied for job pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.12.2021, where no such provision or prescription of the test is provided. Similarly, in the appointment letter also there is no such mention of clearing the test before confirmation. In relevant rules such test is not provided for and it only refers to assessment during the probation period. It is case of the petitioners that they have participated in the procedure of test but have failed and, therefore, they are apprehending non-confirmation in the job though they have otherwise successfully completed the Page 2 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined probation period as required under the advertisement, appointment order and the relevant rules. The probation period is to get over and no sooner thereafter the petitioners will be relieved/discontinued from the job.
4. Aggrieved by their non-confirmation upon non-clearing of the test, the petitioners have preferred this petition with the following prayers:
"6.(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the form of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of holding the examination for purpose of confirmation in service as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioners on completion of their probation period and be pleased to direct the respondent Bank to confirm the petitioners on the post of Circle Based Officers and be pleased to hold that non-passing of the examination cannot lead to termination of probation/services;
Page 3 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined (B) During the admission, pendency and
final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioners and maintain status quo as to the service conditions of the petitioners;
(C) Be pleased to award the cost of this
petition.
(D) Any other and/or further relief/s that
may deem fit looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case may be granted to the petitioner."
5. Facts in brief as sated in the petition are as under:
5.1. An advertisement dated 9.12.2021 was published for recruitment to the post of Circle Based Officer pursuant to which the petitioners applied. The first stage of recruitment process was an online written examination which all the petitioners cleared and thereafter, they were called to appear in the second round which was an oral interview and they were declared successful in the same.Page 4 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined 5.2. Subsequently, document verification and health checkup process were done and after having cleared the same, petitioners were served with their respective appointment orders on 19.7.2022. All the petitioners herein had joined the service w.e.f. 2.11.2022. There are two batches appointed for Circle Based Officers- Batch I- joined services in August, 2022 and Batch II joined the services in November, 2022. All the petitioners belong to Batch-II. It is case of the petitioners that after joining the services, they were informed about passing of test before confirmation, by respondent - Bank through an announcement dated 22.12.2022. For Batch-I appointees through announcement dated 22.12.2022, they were informed that all the appointees shall have to appear and clear the examination. The respondent - Bank, thereafter, conducted examination on 2.1.2023 and the results of the same were published on 10.2.2023.
5.3. Thereafter, another announcement was made by respondent - Bank on 16.3.2023, for conducting the test before their confirmation. Through announcement dated 16.03.2023, the unsuccessful candidates of Batch-I were allowed to participate as their second attempt. In the examination held on 16.3.2023, Batch II including the petitioners were informed to appear and it was considered as their first test. It was case of the petitioners that passing and clearing of the examination Page 5 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined within two attempts was not informed earlier and it was informed first time which is contrary to the advertisement, appointment order and recruitment rules. It is stated in the announcement dated 16.3.2023 that the appointees who failed to clear the examination in first attempt, their period of probation shall be extended for a further period of three months.
5.4. The petitioners herein appeared for first time on 6.4.2023 and were declared unsuccessful. As they failed in the examination in the first attempt as provided in the announcement their probation was extended for a further period of three months which is to end on 2.8.2023. The petitioners, under announcement by respondent - Bank dated 21.6.2023 were permitted for the second attempt on 26.6.2023. In the second attempt also, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful. Since the Batch-I appointees who could not successfully clear the examination after two attempts were terminated / not confirmed in the service, the petitioners with same apprehensions have preferred this petition.
6. Heard Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vyom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General- senior advocate, with Ms. Dharmishta Raval, Ms. Ankeeta Rajput and Mr. Page 6 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined Vaibhav Goshani, learned advocates for the respondent - Bank.
7. Mr. G.M.Joshi, learned senior Advocate for the petitioners made following submissions:
(i) Petitioners applied for and were appointed in terms of the advertisement and appointment letters. There is no mention of such test either in the advertisement or appointment letters. Introduction of such test based on some administrative guidelines is unenforceable and not binding.
Petitioners have successfully completed their probation period and therefore, they are entitled for confirmation without any further procedure to be followed.
(ii) As the introduction of test is contrary to statutory rules, though they have participated in the test and failed, they are entitled to challenge the procedure before this Court and their participation cannot be treated as a bar in challenging the action of the Bank particularly, when it is beyond the statutory rules.
(iii) Administrative decision by way of announcement cannot supersede the statute or rule. Therefore, the introduction of test itself is illegal.
Page 7 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined
(iv) Petitioners are otherwise eligible for confirmation having completed all requirements as mentioned in appointment letters. Referring to Clause 7 of advertisement, learned senior Advocate submitted that it provides that on joining, the selected candidates will be designated as "Circle Based Officers" (CBO) and will be on probation for a period of six months from their date of joining the Bank. The CBOs will be subject to continuous assessment during probation period for judging their suitability for confirmation. If any candidate fails to achieve minimum standards stipulated, his/her services may be terminated as per policy of Bank in force at the material time. Thus, suitability for confirmation is based on continuous assessment during the probation period and therefore, introduction of test through an announcement is illegal. He submitted that as per the recruitment rules in the appointment orders, it is referred that the candidate is on probation for a period of six months from the date of appointment and the same shall be subject to satisfactory performance as referred in Clause 5. Referring to Sub-clause (e) of Clause 5 of the appointment order, he submitted that satisfactory performance is referred as continuous assessment during probation period and completion of prescribed e-lessons/certificate courses. In other words, it is nowhere provided to successfully clear the test which has been announced by an executive order dated 21.6.2023. Learned Advocate heavily relied upon the State Page 8 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 ("the Rules, 1992"
for short). These rules are framed under Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of State Bank of India Act, 1955 ("the Act" for short) and the service conditions of all the officers of respondent - Bank shall be governed by the said rules. In the statutory rules framed under Section 43 of the Act, the probation is prescribed under Chapter IV clause 15 and confirmation is prescribed under clause 16. Clause 16 which refers to confirmation nowhere provides for any test to be announced. Proviso to Clause 16 (1) refers to the test in language other than the mother tongue of an officer who is directly recruited in any grade. The test taken being not a language test is beyond the statutory rules and executive instructions cannot prevail over the statutory rule. In view of this, the examination conducted pursuant to announcement dated 16.3.2023 is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate relied upon following decisions in support of his submissions:
(a) In the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain reported in (1989) 4 SCC 318. (Paras - 6 and 8)
(b) In the case of J & K Public Service Commission, and Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors. reported in Page 9 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined (1994) 2 CCC 630. (Para - 7)
(c) In the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC
210. (Paras - 7,11 and 17)
(d) In the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17. (Paras -
15,16 and 17)
(e) In the case of Bank of India & Ors. vs. O.P.Swarnakar and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721. (Paras - 48) 7.1. Learned Senior Advocate thus submitted that the action taken by the respondents by making the announcement for clearing the test for being confirmed on the post of CBO is illegal and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondents therefore, may be directed to consider the assessment of the petitioners during their probation period and further directed to confirm their appointment.
8. Per contra, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate for the Bank made following submissions:
Page 10 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined
(i) The advertisement was issued for which the petitioners applied and were appointed. In clause 15(xvii) of the advertisement, it is stated that any legal proceedings in respect of any matter or dispute arising out of the advertisement can be instituted only in Mumbai and the Courts/Tribunals in Mumbai shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to try the dispute. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected.
In support of his submission, Learned Senior Advocate relied upon decision of this court in the case of Panchal Vishalchandra Rameshbhai vs. State Bank of India & 1 reported in 2009 SCC Online Guj 5234 and submitted that this Court interpreting the very clause has not entertained the petition and, therefore, appropriate orders rejecting the petition on the ground of maintainability may be passed.
Since time was too short and the probation period was to get over on 2.8.2023, the petition was heard on merits and learned Advocate General has also made submissions on merits which are as under:
(ii) The petitioners were aware about procedure of assessment by conducting test before confirmation and with full knowledge of its consequences, they participated in the test. Having taken the chance, now they are not entitled to challenge the Page 11 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined procedure of test. The announcement was made on 16.3.2023 wherein it is stated that having failed in two attempts the candidate shall not be confirmed on the given post. The petitioners were fully aware about such test taken for the preceding batch and thus, it is the uniform decision taken for all the probationers before confirmation to the post of CBO.
The completion of probation does not confer any right in favour of the candidate to claim confirmation. It is inherent in the process of appointment or recruitment that the management has right to take any prudent decision in the interest of institution which cannot be tested on the anvil of private interest.
(iii) It is pertinent to note that the action of introduction of test and the consequence thereto has not been questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory nor any claim of violation of fundamental right is alleged. There is no complaint of breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners were fully aware of procedure of assessment and knowing well, they appeared in the test. Having not qualified in the test, it is now not open for the petitioners to challenge the action on any ground whatsoever. He submitted that Rule 16 of the said Rules provides for confirmation of probationary officers and the test taken is in consonance with the said rules. Even Clause-7 of the advertisement for joining, training and career path of Page 12 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined the selected candidates provides for assessment as per the standard determined by Bank from time to time.
(iv) Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in the above context if the chronology is revisited, then on 2.11.2022, petitioners joined the service. On 22.12.2022, respondent Bank made an announcement about conduct of assessment test/examination on 2.1.2023 for judging the suitability and confirmation of CBO Probationary. Paragraph 3 of the said announcement reads as under:
"3. CBOs shall be required to appear for an assessment test carrying 200 marks. The test, of 3-hours duration, will consist of 175 questions (125 MCQs of 1 mark each, 5 case- studies having 25 questions of 1 mark each and 5 case-studies having 25 questions of 2 marks each)."
(v) It is pertinent to note that when petitioners had joined and they were aware about the conduct of test which was meant for Batch I of CBOs who had joined the service in August, 2022, whereas the petitioners were appointed subsequently, forming Batch II of CBOs having joined from 2.11.2022. For Batch II CBO Probationers an announcement Page 13 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined was made on 6.4.2023 for judging the suitability and confirmation of Probationers. It was also stated that the CBOs of Batch I who could not clear the first assessment test held on 2.11.2022 would be permitted in the test for second chance.
(vi) On 6.4.2023, the petitioners appeared and failed, as a result, their probation was extended for further period of three months, which is to end on 2.8.2023. Another announcement was made on 26.6.2023, for giving second chance to the probationers who had not cleared the test on first attempt. On 26.6.2023, petitioners appeared and failed. Thus, out of 191 total CBOs, 164 CBOs have successfully cleared the assessment test conducted on 6.4.2023. Another 19 CBOs could not clear the test conducted on 26.6.2023. Remaining 4 CBOs including the petitioners could not clear the re-test. Therefore, the challenge made now after having availed the full opportunity, may not be considered.
9. Mr. Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate relied upon following decisions in support of his submissions:
(a) Panchal Vishalchandra Rameshbhai vs. State Bank of India reported in 2009 SCC Online Guj 5234. (Paras -1,6, 7 and 12) Page 14 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined
(b) Ramesh K. Sharma and Anr. vs. Rajasthan Civil Services and Ors. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 637. (Para - 6)
(c) Dhananjay Malik and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171. (Paras - 7,9,12 to 15)
(d) University Grants Commission & Anr. vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) reported in (2013) 10 SCC 519. (Paras - 26 to
31)
(e) Jitender Guleria vs. Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Ors. reported in 2020 SCC Online HP 2310. ( Paras -
2(iv),3(i),4(ii) and 4)
10. Heard learned senior Advocates for the respective parties at great length. My finding on the basis of facts and circumstances is as under:
(i) The contention of learned Advocate General that the Bombay High Court only has jurisdiction to entertain this petition on merits is not considered at this stage. Considering paucity of time, as the probation period was to get over on 2.8.2023, the matter was heard at length on merits.
(ii) The legal proposition as laid down in the decisions relied Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined upon by learned senior Advocate Mr. Joshi are unquestionable and are settled and accepted proposition of law. In the opinion of this Court the same are however, not applicable with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. These decisions are discussed as under:
(a) Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a statutory rule cannot be modified or amended by executive instructions. A valid rule having some lacuna or gap can be supplemented by executive instructions. The instructions can only be supplemented and not supplant the rule.
In the present case ,Rule 16(1) of the rules reads as under:
"16.1. An officer referred to in rule 15 shall be confirmed in the service of the Bank, if in the opinion of the competent authority, the officer has successfully completed the training in any institution to which the officer may have been deputed for training, and then in- service training in Bank.
... .... ...Page 16 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined Provided that the Officer directly recruited in any grade may be required to pass a test in a language other than his mother tongue or a professional course."
Bare reading of the said rule refers to the successful completion of the training in any institution, to which, the officer may have been deputed for training and then in-service in bank. Even the proviso refers to the test in a language other than his mother tongue. As per submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the bank, this is the very test which has been provided in Rule 16 and, therefore the announcement, is only supplementing and not supplanting.
(b) J & K Public Service Commission, and Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refers to the same proposition that administrative orders can supplement and cannot supplant the statutory rule. When the assessment is to be judged, taking test to judge the assessment of a probationer cannot be stated to be supplanting the Rule. It may be one of the modes of assessment to judge the performance.
(c) Bank of India & Ors. vs. O.P.Swarnakar and Ors. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the statutory rules of the very same Bank . Since it is not the case Page 17 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined of the respondent Bank that the rules framed under Section 43 of the Act are not statutory rules, further elaboration of this decision is not required.
(d) State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr.,In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that executive instructions cannot over ride or substitute the substantive / statutory rule. Since it is a settled legal position, this Court deems it appropriate not to deliberate much on this aspect. The proposition canvassed that executive instructions do not have statutory character and cannot be termed as law within the meaning of the Article 300-A of the Constitution of India ,is not in dispute and further deliberation is not required.
(e) Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and Ors. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere participation cannot prevent the candidate from challenging the selection process. The participation in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In the present case, it is not even the case of the petitioners that there is illegality in the procedure or a case of misconstruction of statutory rule and discrimination. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of this case.
Page 18 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined
11. Now referring to the decisions relied on by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi:
(a) Ramesh K. Sharma and Anr. vs. Rajasthan Civil Services and Ors., In this case it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "service Rule" cannot be given a restrictive meaning in the absence of the definition of the said term and therefore, it would include within its sweep the necessary Government Order providing the method of recruitment.
Applying this principle in this case, in the opinion of this court, the assessment through test is one of the method of recruitment adopted by the respondent Bank.
(b) Dhananjay Malik and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
The above decision was rendered in the context that the advertisement was issued with the requirement of qualification of BPE or graduate with diploma in physical education for appointment of physical education teachers. Since the advertisement and selection process were not in sync with the rules, administrative instructions were issued. In the said context the Hon'ble Supreme court has observed that if the rules are silent on a particular point, Government can fill-up Page 19 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined the gap and supplement the rule and issue instructions which are not inconsistent with the rules.
In this case also, test is for supplementing the assessment. As stated earlier it is one of the modes of assessment.
(c) Jitender Guleria vs. Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Ors.
In the above decision it has been held that once the petitioner has participated without any demur or protest, the challenge after being fully aware about the examination is es- stopped from challenging the same.
In the opinion of this court this proposition is squarely applicable in facts of present case. In this case the petitioners not once but twice have participated in the test and now having failed, are estopped from challenging the procedure.
(d) B. Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi vs. Union of India & Ors., In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is open for the recruiting agency to resort to any rational method of shortlisting , provided it is fair and objective. Here it is not the case of petitioners that fair chance has not been provided to them. Assessment through test can be treated as one of the rational methods of assessment.
12. Adverting to the submissions of learned senior Advocate Page 20 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined for the petitioners that in absence of any mention of test in the advertisement, appointment letter and statutory rules, such test could not be taken and result of such test is inconsequential, though attractive is not acceptable. The reasons being:
(i) Such test is considered necessary by the management for assessment of performance before they are confirmed in service. It is management's discretion to provide mode and method of proper and effective assessment when the assessment is already prescribed in the advertisement which has been reiterated in Clause 5 of the appointment order. In the opinion of this court, mere absence of specific mention of the mode and method of assessment in the appointment letter or in the statutory provision, would not render the assessment through test, illegal. The Probationers were aware that only on successful assessment of performance they may get confirmation in service.
(ii) A probationer has no fundamental or statutory right of confirmation even if he may have successfully completed the probationary period.
(iii) If a particular mode or manner of assessment is not employee specific but applicable to all probationers and this being the Batch II, no fault can be found and cannot be Page 21 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined considered as being arbitrary or discretionary. This Court is also mindful of the fact that a new post of CBOs has been created and upon creation of the said post, the test-based assessment has been introduced by way of announcement. The first announcement dated 2.1.2023 was in the Batch I and 6.4.2023 for the Batch II. Thus, it is not even the case of the petitioners that such procedure has been introduced in case of petitioners only.
(iv) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi is right in his submission that if the petitioners were not required to undergo the test they should not have participated in the test and remained firm on their stand and challenged the procedure of test before-hand which they have not done. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned senior Advocate for the petitioners, when there is no violation of fundamental right or breach of principles of natural justice or the action is not per say illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. In other words, this case does not fall in the afore-stated requirements of law, because except challenging the test being outside the scope of rule, advertisement and appointment order, there is no other ground available.
13. It cannot be also ignored that the petitioners having voluntarily participated in the test and having failed in the Page 22 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12605/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2023 undefined test, as an afterthought have chosen to file this petition. Moreover, as pointed out by learned Senior Advocate for the bank that the proviso to Rule 16 which refers to the test is this very test and no other language test as interpreted by the petitioners have been conducted.
14. In view of afore-stated reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in law or in equity before this Court. With the aforesaid findings, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V. Page 23 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 23:48:34 IST 2023