Patna High Court - Orders
The G.M.,State Bank Of India & vs Sumit Verma & Ors on 15 April, 2010
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1421 of 2009
1. THE G.M.,STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL
RECUITMENT AND PROMOTION DEPARTMENT,
CORPORATE CENTRE, TULSIYANI CHAMBERS, WEST
WING 21, FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG, NARIMAN
POINT, MUMBAI- 400021
2. THE AGM (HR) RECRUITMENT CELL, STATE BANK OF
INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE 8TH FLOOR, WEST GANDHI
MAIDAN, PATNA- 800001
.. Respondent.. Appellants
Versus
1. SUMIT VERMA S/O RAVINDRA KUMAR VERMA RESIDENT
OF 101, AMICUS ISHWARI PLAZA, ROAD NO. 6, EAST PATEL
NAGAR, PATNA-23.
.. Petitioner... Respondent 1st Set.
2. HEAD OF DEPARTMENT BCA, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
OPEN UNIVERSITY, BISCOMAUN BHAWAN, PATNA
3. HEAD OF INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI- 110068.
.. Respondent. Respondent 2nd Set
-----------
For the appellant : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the respondent : None
---------
PRESENT: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA.
ORDER
(15.04.2010) As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J.
I.A. No. 7165 of 2009
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as also taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application, the delay of 84 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.
2. I.A. No. 7165 of 2009 is, accordingly, allowed.
2
L. P. A. No. 1421 of 2009
3. Having condoned the delay, we are also inclined to take up this appeal for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. We have accordingly heard Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at length.
5. In this intra-court appeal, the officials of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as „the Bank‟) have assailed the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.7.2009 in CWJC No. 6580 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 seeking direction for holding the interview of the respondent-writ petitioner for the post of Customer Relationship Executive has been allowed by the learned single Judge by recording that the officials of the Bank could not have refused to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner for his appointment on the aforesaid post of Customer Relationship Executive inasmuch as he had possessed the qualification laid down in the advertisement of the Bank.
6. In view of the fact the learned single Judge has recorded the facts at length, it would not necessary for us to once again record those facts specially when the only submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank is that the respondent-writ petitioner on account of possessing the qualification of Bachelor in Computer Application (B C 3 A) did not possess the essential qualification of graduation in Arts / Science / Commerce. All that in this regard is required to be noted that the Bank had advertised the post of Customer Relationship Executive wherein amongst other essential qualification being graduate in Arts/ Science/ Commerce with 50 % percent marks was prescribed academic qualification. Respondent-writ petitioner in response had submitted his application wherein he had described himself to have passed graduation examination in Science in the year 2004 with 67 percent marks. Additionally, he had also declared himself to be professionally qualified by virtue of his completed two years post graduate diploma in business management with specialization in marketing. In the application submitted by him, he had also shown to have possessed degree in management marketing apart from possessing the knowledge of computer.
7. On the basis of such application and its being screened by the Central Recruitment and Appointment Department of the Cooperate Central of the Bank at Mumbai, respondent-writ petitioner was issued an admit card for appearing in the written test for the post of Customer Relationship Executive and was allotted Roll No. 2401130735. The respondent- writ petitioner was declared to be successful in the written test which was conducted on all India basis whereafter he was asked to 4 appear in interview on 22.4.2009 vide interview call letter dated 20th March 2009. Respondent- writ petitioner in fact claims to have also appeared in such interview on 22.4.2009 at local head office of the Bank at Patna. But in course of interview he was informed by the Interview Board that he did not possess the eligibility qualification inasmuch as the decree in Bachelor Computer Application ( B C A) granted by Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi is not a degree equivalent to degree of Bachelor in Science. Respondent- writ petitioner in the writ application filed by him on 21.5.2009 had claimed that the Bank did not issue the rejection letter and had orally informed him about his disqualification.
8. In the counter-affidavit which was filed by the officials of the Bank, a plea had been taken by them that after the respondent-writ petitioner was declared successful in the written test and was called for interview, it was found in course of scrutiny of the documents submitted by him that he did not hold the degree in any of the three discipline namely Arts/ Science/ Commerce and as such he was not allowed to participate in the proceeding of the interview. The Bank in their counter affidavit filed at the stage of contesting the writ petition in fact had gone to take a plea that Master in Computer Application, Bachelor of Computer Application, Bachelor of Information Technology, Advanced 5 Diploma in Information Technology being conducted by the Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) cannot be held to be a graduation degree in science.
9. Learned single Judge on the basis of a thread bare discussion has recorded following findings:-
".... A reference to the aforesaid educational qualification would show that a person has to be a graduate in Arts/Science/Commerce with 50% marks. It does not say that the candidate must have educational qualification such as B.A./B.Sc. or B.Com, later of which is the stand of the bank. We then have knowledge of computer as an essential qualification but here again in what manner the knowledge has to be established is left to anybody guess. Then, again the third preferential requirement was degree or two years Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management, which admittedly the petitioner has, as he has the degree of Master in Business Administration.
The stand of the bank is that only B.Sc. degree holders would be considered as eligible apart from B.A. or B.Com. To the question whether B.Sc. Computer, B.Sc. Agriculture, MBBS, B.Sc. Engineering, B.Sc. Information Technology would fall within B.Sc., as contemplated by the bank, the stand is totally non- committal leaving it to anybody‟s guess to be decided as and when occasion arises. Thus, the question is whether a person having the degree of Bachelor in Computer 6 Application could be said to be a graduate in Science. In my view, the advertisement nowhere mentions B.Sc. It mentions graduate in Science. Bank is now trying to read B.Sc. to justify exclusion of the petitioner who has BCA.
In my view, a graduate in Computer Application is as much a graduate in Science as a graduate in pure sciences or graduate in Agriculture (B.Sc. Agriculture) or other such graduation degrees. My reasons are two fold. Firstly, if we see the qualification required, it is a graduate in Arts/Science/Commerce. The only thing common between the three courses specified therein is graduation. There is nothing fanciful or special about Arts/Science/Commerce otherwise. Thus, seen the basic requirement is of graduate, which petitioner admittedly is. Secondly, as to whether a graduation course of Computer application is a graduation course in science, in my view, that is so. Graduation in Computer Application is graduation in Science because science is generally understood to include pure or speculative science as well as applied science. For this purpose, I may refer to the definition of science, as given in Advanced Law Lexicon edited by P. Ramanatha Aiyar 3rd Edition, which is quoted hereunder:-
Science. The knowledge of many methodically digested and arranged, so as to be attainable by one; a body of principles and deductions to explain the nature of some matter. Vredemburg v. Behan, [33 Wend. (N.Y.) 205] A branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts and specially 7 with the establishment or strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws chiefly by induction and hypothesis. [SS. 45 and 57 (13), Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872) and Art. 80 (3), Const.] "Science", in its general meaning includes pure or speculative science as well as the applied sciences. (per Ld. MACNAGHTEN, Inl. Rev. V. Forrest, 15 App Cas 353, 354).
Looking to the said definition if there be any confusion in the bank that stands removed. Thus, in my considered view, petitioner cannot be said to be non-science, non-Arts and non-Commerce graduate. What surprises this Court further is two other qualifications that were required were not even seen by the Interview Board. They were knowledge of Computer, the petitioner was graduate in Computer Application, the second was candidates who had degree in Business Management would be preferred, the petitioner had a Post Graduate Degree and was Master in Business Administration, I do not want to speculate why the Interview Board chose not to look into this.
In that view of the matter, on this count alone, the writ petition must succeed. The rejection of petitioner‟s candidature on the ground of not being a graduate in science is not correct in fact or in law and cannot be sustained...."
10. Mr. Sinha learned counsel appearing for the Bank while assailing the aforementioned finding has submitted that the decision of 8 the Bank as with regard to screening of the educational qualification having been made condition precedent in the advertisement, the learned single Judge was not justified in going into the intricacy of the qualification and its equivalence. He therefore had reiterated that respondent-writ petitioner having the qualification of B. C. A. could not have been held as science graduate.
11. In the opinion of this court, the authorities of the Bank have adopted a rather myopic view. If such interpretation of science degree is accepted than even a Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech.) or Bachelor in Medicine and Bachelor in Surgery (MBBS) of Bachelor of Pharmacy ( B. Pharma) would not be qualifying within the constricted interpretation of degree in science. The discipline of Science, Arts and Commerce in fact are in the form of genus and various degrees in different subject of science are its species and therefore the concept of the officials of the Bank that unless there was a degree of Bachelor in Science (B. Sc.) or Bachelor in Arts ( B. A.) or Bachelor in Commerce ( B. Com.) the candidate would not be held to be qualified in terms of the advertisement seems to be wholly illogical, if not absurd. In the present scenario where the concept of education course by way of speciality and super speciality has become an established fact, such degrees B. Tech, B. Pharma, M.B.B.S and like wife B.C.A. cannot be held to be beyond the discipline 9 of Science, Arts or Commerce.
12. Learned single Judge therefore in our considered opinion has rightly gone into the full meaning of word „Science‟ and has also correctly arrived at the conclusion that the B. C. A. is only a science graduate.
13. This Court in fact from the terms of the advertisement would also find that the essential qualification was to be made the basis for appearing in written test inasmuch as the selection was to be held in two stages. The marks of written test was however qualifying inasmuch as marks to be secured in such written test was not to be taken into account for the final selection and such marks in the written test was only made a basis for calling the candidates in interview in ratio of 3 is to 1. Actually selection in fact was to be made on the basis of performance in the interview of 75 marks out of total 100 leaving 25 for additional qualification and experience. Thus, if the respondent-writ petitioner had competed in the written test and was called for interview, he could not have been shown the door on the ground that he was not Science graduate and degree of B.C. A. was neither a degree in Science, Arts or Commerce.
14. This Court in this context has also looked into job profile of Customer Relationship Executive which reads as follows:-
"i. Expected to provide personalized services and 10 build lasting relationships with higher-end customers in his portfolio. Should aim to get their maximum share of bankable business to our Bank.
ii. Responsible for marketing of various group products of the Bank and to cross sales / up sale for greater share in the wallet of the customer.
iii. Responsible for increasing business by improving product utilization ratio of the existing customers and by regularly adding new high value customers to his portfolio.
iv. Primarily outbound and should spend>60% of his time in building relationships in meeting customers existing/potential at the place of their choice."
15. If in this background, the following qualification of the respondent-writ petitioner namely:-
i) B. C. A. in first division,
ii) The post graduate diploma in business management again
in first division and
iii) the degree in marketing management also in first division
is taken into consideration, he would be definitely one of the most suitable candidate at least for being selected for the post of Customer Relationship Executive advertised by the Bank.
16. In the opinion of this court whenever the Government or any Public Sector undertaking including Bank issue an employment notice and undertake selection, the idea is always to select the best qualified and most suitable candidates. If the orthodox and pedantic approach of the Bank is allowed to prevail the well and in better qualified candidates 11 would be eliminated from zone of consideration the whole concept and purpose of right to equality and equal opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be rendered futile. The Apex Court and this Court had repeatedly held that avenues of employment are national wealth and have to be allowed to be explored by the best talented people.
17. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we would not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
18. There would be, however, no order as to costs.
(Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 15th of April, 2010 NAFR/kanchan