Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Sikarwar vs Union Of India Thr on 9 December, 2016
-( 1 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
(Vivek Agarwal, J.)
W.P. No.5230/2015(S)
.....Petitioner : Ravi Sikarwar
Versus
.....Respondents : Union Bank of India & Ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Surange, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(09/12/2016) Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2015 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Rural Development Officer.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner had applied for the post of officers (Scale-I) in regional rural banks as was advertised by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection for the purpose of recruitment to various banks. In the advertisement, educational qualification for the officers Scale I (Specialist officers) for the post of Agricultural Field Officer/Rural Development Officer was 4 year degree (graduation) in Agriculture /Horticulture/Animal Husbandry/ Veterinary Science/ Dairy Science/ Agri. Engineering/ Fishery Science/ Pisciculture /Agri Marketing & Cooperation/ Cooperation and Banking / Agro- Forestry from a recognized university or its equivalent. According to the petitioner, he was selected but was not deputed for induction training on the ground that his degrees are not admissible. According to the petitioner, he is having degree of B.Sc. in Forestry from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. He has also passed fellowship examination 2013 conducted by Indian Council of Agricultural Research for pursuing
-( 2 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) PHD degree in the discipline of Forestry/ Agro Forestry, and therefore, the act of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Rural Development Officer as per recruitment policy is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Petitioner has categorically submitted that educational qualification of B.Sc. (Agro Forestry) as included in the advertisement Annexure P/5 is not awarded by any University in India and the degree of the petitioner is fully valid and authorized for the purpose of appointment on the post in question. It is also submitted that impugned order Annexure P/1 was passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing and is thus in violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Respondent No.3 has filed its return and has mentioned that since IBPS is not a State within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is a Public Trust registered under the Public Trust Act, 1950 and also the Societies Registration Act, 1860, therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from raising the issue of jurisdiction, respondent No.3 has further submitted that in terms of the notification dated 17.11.2014 any dispute arising out of the advertisement including the recruitment process has to be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Mumbai, and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present petition. It is also mentioned that qualification required for the post of Agriculture Field Officer Scale-I was 4 year degree (graduation) in Agriculture/ Horticulture/ Animal Husbandry/ Veterinary Science/ Dairy Science/ Agri. Engineering/ Fishery Science/ Pisciculture/ Agri Marketing & Cooperation/ Co-operation & Banking/ Agro-Forestry, and therefore, petitioner does not possess necessary qualification as given in advertisement R/3 for the post of Agriculture Field Officer also known as Rural Development Officer in Union Bank of India, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge the impugned order, Annexure P/1, and
-( 3 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) petitioner at the outset was fully aware of the consequences that he was not having eligibility qualification for the post of RDO/AFO. It is also mentioned that if petitioner did not fulfill the necessary qualification, then no fault can be attributed to respondent No.3. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Gaurav Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ-A No.44934/2013 holding that candidate is required to have educational qualification exactly as per the advertisement in question for the concerned post and cannot be equated or replaced with any other qualification for any reason. Respondent No.3 has also submitted that petitioner was required to be considered as per the existing terms and conditions of the advertisement and any subsequent qualification issued by the Government of India clarifying the requisite qualifications for recruitment of Agriculture Field Officers under the Banking sector will not have any impact on the case of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Lata Arun as reported in AIR 2002 SC 2642 wherein the Supreme Court has held that prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.3829/2014 between Sachin Narnaware Vs. IBPS & Union of India and others wherein based on the advertisement dated 18.11.2013 the High Court refused to grant equivalence to B.Tech Degree in Food Science and the B.Sc. Degree in Agriculture. Respondent No.3 has also submitted that petitioner's reliance on Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare office memorandum dated 18.11.2015, Annexure P/7, filed alongwith the application for interim relief, will not supersede the advertisement dated 17.11.2014 and the impugned order dated 27.6.2015 inasmuch as the said
-( 4 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) memorandum is not applicable with retrospective effect.
4. Therefore, the issues which arise for decision in the present writ petition are; (i) whether respondents being not State, writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and (ii) whether despite there being stipulation in the advertisement issued by IBPS regarding jurisdiction being restricted to Mumbai can writ petition be entertained by this Court at Gwalior and (iii) whether in absence of any Indian University granting 4 year bachelor degree in Agro - Forestry, Bachelor degree in Forestry can be considered to be equivalent and eligible for continuance of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Rural Development Officer.
5. As far as issue No.1 and 2 are concerned, IBPS had made selection and forwarded the list to the sponsoring banks. Petitioner was given provisional offer of appointment for the post of Rural Development Officer by the Union Bank of India and the impugned order has also been passed by the Union Bank of India which is a Government of India undertaking, therefore, as far as provisions of Article 12 are concerned, Union Bank of India being instrumentality of the State, provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are attracted, and therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. This aspect also gets support from the judgments on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others as reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 wherein the Supreme Court has held that term "authority" used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words "Any person or authority" used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentality of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not
-( 5 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) very much relevant. Similarly, petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. as reported in (2012) 12 SCC 331 wherein it is held that writ cannot be denied if person or authority concerned performs public duty not necessarily imposed by statute. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting relief. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Janet Jeyapaul Vs. SRM University and others in civil appeal No.14553/2015 decided on 15th December, 2015 wherein it has been held that if the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can be issued. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie and thereafter placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. as reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649, it has been held that when a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article
226.
6. As far as stipulation in the return of respondent No.3 regarding jurisdiction of Courts at Mumbai is concerned, once the offer letter issued by the Union Bank of India and cancelled by it has been communicated to the petitioner at Morena within territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Courts at Gwalior will have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition. In fact, under the general instructions, it is provided that in resolving the dispute arising out of this advertisement, including the recruitment process, shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Mumbai. In the present case, once resolution declaring the name of the petitioner was recommended, then IBPS had become functus officio and the dispute is between the petitioner and the Union Bank of India. On the point of jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 wherein Supreme
-( 6 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) Court has held that cause of action arising within jurisdiction of more than one High Court, then it is for the petitioner to choose his forum. In the present case, the cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of more than one High Courts inasmuch as impugned order has been served on the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and petitioner had undertaken his examination conducted by respondents No.2 and 3 at Gwalior as is apparent from the admit card enclosed by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that Courts at Mumbai alone have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Supreme Court has further held that keeping in view the expressions used in Article 226(2) of the Constitution indisputablly even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues with the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. as reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 wherein the Supreme Court has held that High Court can issue a writ if cause of action wholly or partially arises within its territorial jurisdiction even if person or authority against whom writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, in order to maintain a writ petition, petitioner has to establish that his legal right has been infringed by the respondents within territorial limit of High Court's jurisdiction. Thus, it is apparent that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
7. Now the dispute which is to be decided is that when Joint Secretary (Policy) of Government of India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare (Policy Division) vide OM dated 18th November, 2015 has categorically mentioned that the department had examined the issue of consideration of agriculture and its allied disciplines such as Forestry for recruitment for Agriculture Field Officer in bank and has confirmed that no four year bachelor's programme in agro-forestry is available in the country, but agro- forestry is covered comprehensively as a subject in the ICAR
-( 7 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) approved syllabus for B.Sc. (Forestry) which is offered as a four years degree programme by various State Agricultural Universities in the country and recommended that it would be appropriate that B.Sc. (Forestry) graduates are considered for the positions of Agricultural Field Officers in banks, the stand taken by the petitioner stood vindicated that there is no university in India granting 4 years B.Sc. degree in Agro- Forestry. Petitioner has also produced copy of the list of candidates as Annexure P/11 appointed by Syndicate Bank between 2011 to 2015 who had joined bank as Agricultural Field Officer/Rural Development Officer having graduation degree in B.Sc. Forestry or B.Sc. Agro Forestry. Similar information was furnished by Central Bank of India that in 2013, 24 candidates had joined bank having qualification of graduation degree in B.Sc. Forestry or B.Sc. Agro Forestry, but their names were not disclosed. Similarly, it was disclosed that 13 candidates had joined services of the bank as Agricultural Field Officer/Rural Development Officer having qualification of graduation degree in B.Sc. Forestry or B.Sc. Agro Forestry in the year 2014. Andhra Bank too informed the petitioner that in the year 2013, 6 candidates had joined Andhra Bank as Agricultural Field Officer /RDO having graduation degree in B.Sc. Forestry or B.Sc. Agro Forestry. Vijaya Bank had also furnished list of two persons who had joined the bank as AFO/RDO having graduation degree in B.Sc. Forestry & M.Sc. Forestry with their respective dates of joining as 26.5.14 and 23.5.14. Thus, demolishing the claim made by respondent No.3 that the qualification as was prescribed in the advertisement was sacrosanct and could not have been effected on the touchstone of equivalence or otherwise. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that the information as has been produced by the petitioner under RTI does not belong to range of banks for whom recruitment was arranged by respondent No.3. In fact, a bare perusal of Annexure R/3 demonstrates that Andhra Bank, Central Bank of India, Vijya Bank and Syndicate Bank were participating organizations, and their recruitment was made through respondent No.3. On the issue of qualification, petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of
-( 8 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) Supreme Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. in civil appeal No.13368/2015 decided on 6th November, 2015. In that case, the appellant had completed B.Sc. (Forestry) as one of the major subjects from Garwal University, Uttarakhand in year 2001. Thereafter, he completed his M.Sc. (Forestry) from the same University in the year 2003 and then passed National Eligibility Test in Forestry from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in the year 2005-06. According to the advertisement, minimum qualification required for applying to the post of Range Officer Grade I in J & K Forest Service was "B.Sc. Forestry or its equivalent from any University recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research". The Supreme Court after noting the fact that the appellant had to his credit the qualification of B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and masters in Forestry i.e. M.Sc. Forestry on the date when he applied for the post in question, held that High Court erred in holding that in order to be eligible candidate, the appellant should have done B.Sc. in Forestry and since he had not done so, he was not considered as an eligible candidate. In the case of Parvaiz Ahmad the Supreme Court held that if there was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the candidate, rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, the Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that there was no ambiguity or vagueness, yet since appellant was having B.Sc. degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation, it was held that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and his application could not have been rejected treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification.
8. In this backdrop, it is apparent that petitioner who possessed qualification of B.Sc. in Forestry and also passed fellowship examination conducted by ICAR for pursuing P.H.D. Degree in the discipline of Forestry, was eligible for the recruitment inasmuch he
-( 9 )- W.P. No.5230/2015(S) was awarded Senior Research Fellowship (PGS) for pursuing PHD programme in the discipline of Forestry/ Agro Forestry/ Silviculture. The corrigendum which has been filed by the petitioner issued by the respondent/IBPS shows that educational qualification of 4 year degree in Forestry was included on the strength of the office memorandum dated 18th November, 2015 issued by the Government of India as contained in Annexure P/9. It is also admitted fact as is apparent from Annexure P/11 that for the same selection process in which petitioner was a candidate, participating banks like Syndicate Bank, Central Bank of India, Andhra Bank and Vijya Bank had granted appointments to the persons having qualification of graduation degree in B.Sc. Forestry. Besides when no Indian University grants 4 year B.Sc. degree in Agro Forestry, the impossibility of a thing could not be a reason to deny just claims. On this aspect, judgment of Sachin Narnaware (supra) is distinguishable.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad (supra), there was ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement inasmuch as petitioner has been able to successfully demonstrate that none of the Universities in India grant 4 year bachelor's programme in Agro Forestry as is evident from Annexure P/9. Therefore, it was the responsibility of respondent No.3 to have clarified it, but as it was not clarified as is admitted by respondent No.3, then the benefit should accrue to the petitioner. Thus, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, Annexure P/1 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits on the post of Rural Development Officer.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-