IBPS Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Dismisses Banking Candidate’s Appeal

The case of Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. The Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai involved a dispute over the cancellation of a candidate’s selection for a clerical post in Public Sector Banks. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on the applicability of writ jurisdiction to private entities conducting public sector recruitment and reinforces the principle that writ remedies are limited to bodies performing public functions under statutory obligations.

Background of the Case

On 12th August 2013, the IBPS issued an advertisement inviting applications for clerical cadre positions (Clerk-III) in Public Sector Banks. The appellant, Rajbir Surajbhan Singh, participated in the Common Written Examination (CWE) conducted on 1st October 2013 and secured 110 marks out of 200. He was shortlisted and called for an interview on 14th February 2014.

During the interview, the appellant submitted a caste certificate dated 28th October 2010, issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Nangal Chowdhary, Haryana, declaring him as a member of the Ahir community, which is recognized as an Other Backward Class (OBC). However, as per the advertisement, OBC candidates were required to produce a certificate issued between 1st April 2013 and 31st March 2015. The appellant could not provide a certificate within the required timeframe, leading to the cancellation of his candidature.

The appellant challenged the cancellation before the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition on the ground that IBPS was not a ‘State’ under Article 12 and was not performing a public function subject to Article 226 jurisdiction. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether IBPS qualifies as a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Whether IBPS performs public functions that make it subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Whether the appellant’s failure to produce an OBC certificate within the prescribed period justified his disqualification.

Arguments by the Appellant (Rajbir Surajbhan Singh)

IBPS was established to facilitate recruitment for Public Sector Banks, which are ‘State’ under Article 12.
IBPS is governed by a governing body consisting of senior officials from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Ministry of Finance, and Public Sector Banks.
Government approval was required for IBPS to conduct recruitment, indicating significant government control.
The appellant’s failure to produce the required certificate was an inadvertent mistake that should not have led to disqualification.

Arguments by the Respondents (IBPS)

IBPS is a private entity registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
IBPS does not receive government funds or function under statutory control.
Merely conducting recruitment for Public Sector Banks does not make IBPS a ‘State’ or subject to writ jurisdiction.
The eligibility criteria were clearly mentioned in the advertisement, and failure to comply justified the appellant’s disqualification.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the nature of IBPS and its role in conducting banking sector recruitment. The Court examined precedents regarding the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 and the applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Key observations:

IBPS is neither created by statute nor receives financial or administrative control from the government.
IBPS does not exercise sovereign or public functions in a manner that makes it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The governing body, though comprising representatives from Public Sector Banks and government institutions, does not establish government control over IBPS.
IBPS’s role in recruitment is voluntary and contractual, not a statutory obligation.

Key Judgment Excerpt:

“Conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions is not a public duty. The Respondent is not a creature of a statute and there are no statutory duties or obligations imposed on it.”

The Court ruled that IBPS is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 and does not perform public functions warranting writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellant’s failure to produce the required OBC certificate within the specified timeframe justified his disqualification. The appeal was dismissed.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling confirms that private organizations conducting recruitment on behalf of public sector entities are not necessarily subject to writ jurisdiction.
The decision ensures that courts apply strict criteria in determining the ‘public function’ test for writ maintainability.
The judgment reinforces the importance of complying with eligibility requirements in competitive examinations.

Conclusion

This judgment sets a precedent for future cases concerning the applicability of writ jurisdiction to private bodies engaged in public sector recruitment. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that only entities with significant government control or statutory obligations can be subjected to judicial review under Article 226.

Petitioner Name: Rajbir Surajbhan Singh.
Respondent Name: The Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 29-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rajbir Surajbhan Sin vs The Chairman, Instit Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category