Patna High Court - Orders
Praveen Kumar vs The State Bank Of India & Ors on 22 December, 2009
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Saran, Shiva Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.956 of 2009
Praveen Kumar s/o Maheshwari Singh r/o village Ismailpur,
P.S. Sherghati, District - Gaya ......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank Of India through its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai
2. General Manager, Central Recruitment and Promotion
Department, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre,
Tulsiani Chamber, 1st Floor (West Wing), 212 Free Press
Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai
3. The Chief General Manager, the State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna
4. Assistant General Manager (HRD), Recruitment Cell,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor West
Gandhi Maidan, Patna ................. Respondents
with
LPA. No.1064 of 2009
---
1. Mukesh Kumar Singh s/o Raghav Pd. Singh r/o Mohall -
Manrakhan Lal Ka Hata, Maulabag, P.S, Ara Nawada,
District - Bhojpur
2. Satyendra Kr. Sinha, s/o late Alakh Bihari Prasad,
Accounts Officer of A.G. (A& E), Bihar, P.S. Kotwali,
Birchand Patel Path, Patna
3. Shiv Bachan Singh s/o late Ram Swaroop Singh, r/o
village - Ancha, P.S. Daud Nagar, District - Aurangabad
............... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State Bank Of India through its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Tulsiyani Chamber, West Wing 212, Nariman
Point, Mumbai
2. General Manager, Central Recruitment and Promotion
Department, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chamber, West
Wing, 212 Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai
3. The Chief General Manager, the State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna
4. Assistant General Manager (HRD), Recruitment Cell,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor West
Gandhi Maidan, Patna
5. Sri Ajay Kumar s/o late Kamleshwari Prasad Barnwal, r/o
village - Katoria, P.S. Katoria, District - Banka
2
6. Ramkhushi s/o Ram Hausla Singh, r/o village - Manupur,
P.S. Dighwara, District - Saran .......... Respondents
with
LPA. No.1350 of 2009
---
1. The State Bank of India through its Chief General
Manager, Nariman Point, Mumbai
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Central
Recruitment & Promotion Department, Corporate Centre,
Tulsiayani Chamber, West Wing, 212, Free Press General
Marge Nariman Point, Mumbai
3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local
Head Officer, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
4. The General Manager (HR Department), State Bank of
India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad
5. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, HR
Department, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti
Hyderabad
6. The Asst. General Manager, (HR) State Bank of India
Local Head Office, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna
............. Appellants
Vs.
Naveen Kumar s/o Shri Satya Prakash, r/o village -
Kauwakol, P.S. Kauwakol, District - Nawadah ...
.............. Respondent
-----------
For the appellants : Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate
(LPA. No.956/09)
Mr.Binok Kanth, Sr. Advocate
Sri S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate
(LPA. No.1064/09)
Mr. R.B. Mahto, Sr. Advocate
Mr.K.K,Sinha,
Mr. S.K.Singh, Advocates
(LPA. No.1350/09)
For the respondents: Mr.R.B. Mahto, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K.K. Sinha,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates
(LPA. Nos.956 & 1064/09)
Mr.Binod Kanth, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S.B.k. Mangalam, Advocate
(LPA. No.1350/09)
3
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice
&
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran, J.
Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ These three letters patent appeals have been heard
together in detail for the purpose of final disposal at the stage
of admission itself. They have been treated analogous
because common issues of facts and law are involved
requiring interpretation of eligibility criteria mentioned in
the advertisement issued by the State Bank of India for the
purpose of recruitment to the post of Probationary Officer in
the Bank. The advertisement in question bears the number -
2008-09/04prescribing preliminary (Tier I) examination on 12.10.2008 and main (Tier II) examination on 30.11.2008.
In this batch of appeals altogether five applicants are involved. Writ petition of appellant Praveen Kumar leading to LPA No.956 of 2009 and writ petition of Mukesh Kumar Singh and others leading to LPA. No.1064 of 2009 have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge but in the same facts and circumstances writ petition of Naveen Kumar, respondent in LPA. No.1350 of 2009, has been allowed by another learned Single Judge.
4For the purposes of appreciating the main issue involved in these appeals only few facts are necessary to be noticed in brief. Pursuant to the advertisement which has been annexed as Annexure -2 to LPA. No.1064 of 2009, all the applicants applied treating themselves eligible for taking examination in question. The eligibility criteria relevant for our purpose is in Clause -1 of the advertisement and reads as follows:
1.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (AS ON 1/7/2008):
(a) Educational qualifications:
General Candidates 60% or more marks in
and others Class XII and 55% or more
marks in Graduation or
Post Graduation.
The other criteria are not relevant for these cases. The
general instructions mentioned in Clause - 11 of the advertisement are partly relevant. In sub-clause (a) it is mentioned that the applicants are to ensure that they fulfil eligibility and other norms and in case it is detected at any stage of recruitment that a candidate does not fulfil the eligibility norms etc., his/her candidature will stand cancelled. If any of these shortcomings is/are detected even after appointment, his/her services are liable to be 5 terminated and in sub-clause (b) it is mentioned that admission to written test examination will be purely provisional without verification of age/qualification etc., of the candidates with reference to documents. Sub- clause (j) of Clause 11 is also to the aforesaid effect as noticed in relation to sub-clause (a).
The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank in screening their candidature at the stage of group discussion/interview and holding them ineligible on the ground that they do not have 55% of marks at the stage of graduation. For arriving at this conclusion the Bank has taken the aggregate marks obtained by the writ petitioners in all the subjects at the stage of graduation including honours subjects and subsidiary subjects or any other subjects such as compulsory as find mentioned in the mark- sheet issued by Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara in the case of Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the writ petitioners in CWJC. No.3018 of 2009. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent Bank should have considered the percentage obtained by the writ petitioners only in the honours papers of graduation and should not have included 6 the marks obtained in other papers such as subsidiary or compulsory.
The case of the respondent Bank is that selection process involved 3500 posts of Probationary Officer for which the number of applicants were 205546 and hence they adopted a system for screening the candidates' documents etc., only at the time of interview after the candidate had cleared preliminary examination and main examination. According to the Bank, the advertisement does not relate to system of evaluation and marking of any particular University and, therefore, a uniform criteria was laid down that the candidate should have secured minimum marks of 55% in the Graduation Examination or Post Graduation Examination.
The stand of the Bank is that nothing more need to be added to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement so as to give facility to the honours students by confining their percentage only to the honours papers and not on the basis of all the papers for which marks were awarded in the Graduation Examination. On the other hand the case of the writ petitioners is that almost all the Universities, for 7 the purpose of placing such successful candidates in a particular class such as 1st or 2nd Class confine the criteria of percentage only to honours subject while excluding marks obtained in subsidiary papers. Hence, it has been submitted that 55% marks given in the eligibility criteria should be read as 55% marks for honours papers only.
We have the privilege of going through two judgments; one which has been challenged by the writ petitioners through LPA. No.956 & 1064 of 2009 and the other judgment by another learned Single Judge which has been challenged by the State Bank of India and its officials through LPA. No.1350 of 2009. The earlier judgment challenged by the writ petitioners proceeds on literal meaning of the words used in the advertisement without referring to practice or norms usually adopted by the Universities in case of honours candidates. But in the latter judgment another learned Single Judge has noticed the other judgment but taken a different view by placing reliance upon final mark- sheet issued in favour of writ petitioner Naveen Kumar by the concerned University i.e., Patna University. The learned Single Judge noticed that in the mark-sheet issued for B.A. 8 (3 year degree course) History honours only the marks of honours papers were given by that University which included marks for theory papers of BA Part -I, theory papers of BA Part - II and the marks of remaining papers of BA Part - III. Since the marks of subsidiary papers and all composition subjects were not mentioned in this mark-sheet, the learned Single Judge in the judgment which is subject matter of LPA by the Bank , that is, LPA. No.1350 of 2009 came to the view that judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of other applicants such as Praveen Kumar and others was per incuriam of material fact such as marks obtained by the candidate as given by the University in the final mark-sheet.
On behalf of the applicants/writ petitioners it has been submitted by the Senior Advocate Mr. Kanth that in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376, the applicants should not have been declared ineligible after they had been permitted to take the preliminary and the main examination.
In paragraph - 6 of the aforesaid judgment in the 9 case of Kurukshetra University, the court has noticed the statute in question which limited the power of the University to withholding the candidature for taking examination by a student at any time before the examination. It was in the light of such provision the court held that University could not revert back to that power after the candidate had been permitted to take the examination.
In the present case, we have already noticed various sub clauses of Clause 11 of the advertisement which safeguard the power of the State Bank of India to look into eligibility criteria of candidates at any stage of recruitment process. Hence, we find no merit in the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.
Going to the main crux of the matter, we find that the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement cannot be modified or interpreted in the light of practice procedure or provisions of one or more Universities. Different Universities may have different norms for awarding class or grades to honours students or pass course students but the interpretation of the eligibility clause in the advertisement has to be confined to the words used therein and not on the 10 basis of practice and procedure of any University.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge which is under challenge by the writ petitioners through two letters patent appeals has been rendered on the basis of words used in the advertisement without taking any external help or without being guided by provisions of any University whereas the judgment taking a contrary view in favour of one of the candidates Naveen Kumar has interfered in the matter only on the ground of mark-sheet issued by the Patna University.
On going through the annexures of CWJC. No.8459 of 2009 preferred by Naveen Kumar it has been found that the final mark-sheet no doubt contains marks of only the honours papers but it gives clear indication that the graduation course of the University consisted of three parts. Marks of Part - I & Par - II issued through different mark- sheets which are annexed as part of Annexure -1 series, disclose marks obtained by that writ petitioner in composition and subsidiary papers also. In such circumstances, asking the Bank not to take into consideration the marks obtained by Naveen Kumar in different papers in 11 BA Part - I and BA Part - II whereas mark-sheet of honours reveals marks obtained in honours papers of Part - I & Part
- II also would not be a proper procedure because it will require the respondent Bank to exclude marks of the same candidate obtained by him in some other papers of graduation course. To do so would amount to changing the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement. The eligibility criteria makes no distinction between honours graduates and graduates only with pass course. Percentage of marks cannot have any other meaning except the percentile derived out of the aggregate marks divided by number of all the papers.
On behalf of the writ petitioners it was argued that use of the word "aggregate" for working out percentage will violate the terms of the advertisement. We find no substance in the submission because percentage of marks cannot be worked out unless aggregate of marks is compiled and then percentage is calculated on the basis of total marks of all the subjects.
Hence, in our considered view, the judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeals in LPA. No.956 & 1064 12 of 2009, suffers from no illegality and requires no interference. Therefore, those two appeals are dismissed but without cost.
In view of facts and law discussed above, we have no option but to hold that the judgment under appeal in LPA. No.1350 of 2009 preferred by the State Bank of India cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The writ petition bearing CWJC. No.8459 of 2009 is dismissed.
LPA. No.1350 of 2009 thus stands allowed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) ( Jyoti Saran, J.) Patna High Court, Dated, the 22nd December, 2009 Neyaz/(AFR)