Karnataka High Court
Sri Madhan N vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.17484 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI MADHAN N
S/O R NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PERMANENT
R/O NEAR OVER HEAD TANK
DODDAKADATUR, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563130
KARNATAKA
2. SRI SHAMAL DILIP RAO KATHALE
S/O DILIP RAO
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O WADHONA, MENDHALA NARKHED
NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA-441301
3. SMT B RAMYAA
D/O BALASUNDARAM
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O NO.8, MUDHALIYAR STREET
ADUKKAMPARAI TB SANATORIUM
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU-632011
4. SRI JANAPATI MURALIDHAR
S/O J MUNIBABU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.23/185 NAGALAKATTA STREET
JAMMALAMADUGU, KADAPA
ANDHRA PRADESH-516434
2
5. KUM. NISHA TANWAR
D/O NAND LAL TANWAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
PERMANENT
R/O VAN VIHAR COLONY
WARD NO.3, CHURU
RAJASTHAN -331001
6. SRI SAI KUMAR P
S/O PARAMASIVAM G
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
PERMANENT R/O H NO.9/24
AMBEDKAR NAGAR, JARAKU
MANIATHAHALLI, DHARMAPURI
TAMIL NADU -636807
7. SRI ADESH SANDESH THETE
S/O SANDESH THETE
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
PERMANENT R/O AT POST KOLHAR BK
RAHATA TALUK, AHMEDNAGAR
MAHARASHTRA-413710
8. KUM. RITU DADHEECH
D/O BRIJENDRA DADHEECH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
PERMANENT R/O NO.149, OM KUTIR
NEAR KALI TEMPLE, CHURU
RAJASTHAN-331001
9. SRI CHETAN DASONDHI
S/O BHIM SINGH DASONDHI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
PARMANENT R/O NO.290
KARAHI GRAM, MAHESHWARAKHARGONE
MADHYA PRADESH-451220
10. SRI VED PRAKASH
S/O BISHAN LAL
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
PERMANENT R/O WARD NO.3
3
3 MGM, ROJARI, GANGANAGAR
RAJASTHAN-335707
11. SMT POOJA DAS
D/O D KRISHNA DAS
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
PERMANENT R/O SASTHARAM
CHERPULASSERY POST
PALAKKAD, KERALA-679503
12. SRI SOUNDAR RAJAN R
S/O RAVI R
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
PERMANENT R/O NO.2/160 A
KODDUKKANVATTAM
ANDIPATTY POST, PANAGADU
SIDDHARKOVIL MAIN ROAD
SALEM, TAMIL NADU-636307
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL SERVICE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001
2. INSTITUTE OF BANKING
PERSONNEL SELECTION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
IBPS HOUSE, 90 FEET, D P ROAD
NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC
OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY
P B NO.8587, KANDIVALI (E)
MUMBAI-400101
3. THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
REP BY ITS MANAGER
4
HEAD OFFICE, 'LOKMANGAL' 1501
SHIVAJINAGAR,
PUNE-411005
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
HEAD OFFICE LOKMANGALA 1501
SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE-411005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE
FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING THE RECRUITMENT
NOTIFICATION DTD 30.08.2021 VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY
THE R-4 PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE SAME AND
FURTHER DIRECT THE R-3 TO OPERATE RESERVE SELECT
LIST VIDE ANNX-C (SERIES) AND APPOINT THE
PETITIONERS AS AGRICULTURE FILED OFFICERS SCALE-I,
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are applicants to the posts of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I) in terms of the notification dated 1.11.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent-Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. The grievance of the petitioners is that although they were informed individually that they have been kept in the reserve list subject to vacancy for the year 2021- 22 as per the Annexure-C series, however, the 3rd respondent-Bank of Maharashtra has issued a fresh recruitment notification dated 30.08.2021 calling for the posts of Agricultural Field Officer interalia.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case stands covered by a decision of a Co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sri Akash Sethi and others /vs./ Union of India and others in W.P.No.5317/2019 dated 16.04.2021. The learned counsel submits that having noticed the 6 reserve list and the terms and conditions stated therein, the co-ordinate bench issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents i.e., Regional Rural Banks, who had participated in the notification to consider the case of the petitioners who are found eligible in the reserve list and offer appointments, if they are found otherwise eligible. The learned counsel therefore submits that the 3rd respondent-Bank of Maharashtra could not have issued a new recruitment notification dated 30.08.2021 without operating the reserve list prepared by the 2nd respondent-IBPS. The learned counsel therefore seeks similar directions as was directed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Akash Sethi (supra).
3. Per contra, Sri A.Ravishankar appearing for the 2nd respondent-IBPS submits that the 3rd respondent- Bank of Maharastra was not a participating bank in so far as the posts of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I) is concerned. The learned 7 counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-1 of the notification dated 1.11.2020 and in respect of the posts of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I), he points out that Bank of Maharashtra had not participated for recruitment to the said posts. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that when Bank of Maharashtra had never participated for filling of posts of Agricultural Field Officers (Scale-I) through the notification dated 1.11.2020, the very foundation of this writ petition is taken away. The learned counsel therefore submits that if the Bank of Maharashtra has issued a fresh notification, it is because it did not participate in the recruitment for the posts of Agricultural Posts (Scale-I) in the notification dated 1.11.2020 and therefore the Bank of Maharastra was free to issue a fresh notification. Moreover, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir Surajbhan Singh /vs./ Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel 8 Selection - (2019) 14 SCC 189 has clearly held that the IBPS is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no control by the Government over the IBPS.
4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent adopts the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and submits that since Bank of Maharashtra did not participate for the posts of Agricultural Field Offcier in the notification dated 1.11.2020 issued by the IBPs, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are free to apply as per the recruitment notification dated 30.08.2021. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the application in terms of the notification dated 30.08.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent-Bank of Maharashtra was required to be submitted online from 1.09.2021 to 19.09.2021, therefore the window for application has been closed. 9
5. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that factually the case of the petitioners is not similar to the case decided by the Co-ordinate bench in the case of Akash Sethi (supra). The factual averments made by the respondents is not found in the decision in the case of Akash Sethi. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the 3rd respondent- Bank of Maharashtra never participated in the recruitment process under notification dated 1.11.2020 for the posts of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I), the question of operating the reserve list in respect of the petitioners under the notification would not arise.
6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY