Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajbir Suraj Bhan Singh, participated in a Common Written Examination conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) for clerical cadre posts in Public Sector Banks. He secured 110 marks out of 200 and was called for an interview on 14.02.2014. At the interview, he submitted a caste certificate dated 28.10.2010 issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Nangal Chowdhary, Haryana, showing he belonged to the Ahir community, recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC). He also had a certificate dated 29.01.2014 in the prescribed format declaring him as OBC and not belonging to the creamy layer. However, as per the advertisement, OBC candidates were required to produce a certificate issued between 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2015. The appellant could not produce a certificate within that period, leading to his disqualification on 01.04.2014. He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the disqualification, which was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that IBPS is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not discharge public functions. The Supreme Court considered two main issues: whether IBPS is a 'State' under Article 12, and whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against IBPS on the ground of public duty. The appellant argued that IBPS is under deep and pervasive government control, citing the composition of its governing body and a letter from the Ministry of Finance approving its recruitment programme. The respondent contended that IBPS is a private society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, receives no government funds, and is not administratively controlled by the government; it merely conducts examinations on a contractual basis. The Supreme Court, applying the test from Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, held that IBPS is not financially, functionally, or administratively dominated by the government. The presence of government nominees in the governing body does not amount to pervasive control. The Court also held that IBPS does not discharge public duty; its functions are contractual and not statutory. Therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 12 - 'Other Authorities' - Deep and Pervasive Control Test - IBPS, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, is not 'State' under Article 12 as there is no financial, functional, or administrative control by the Government; mere presence of government nominees in governing body does not constitute pervasive control (Paras 8-10). B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Public Duty - IBPS does not discharge public duty as it is a private entity conducting examinations on contractual basis for banks; writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against it (Paras 9-10). C) Service Law - Recruitment - Caste Certificate - Validity - Appellant's failure to produce OBC certificate within prescribed period (01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015) at interview led to disqualification; subsequent production of certificate issued in 2010 and 2014 did not cure defect (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground of discharging public duty.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that IBPS is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not discharge public duty; therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The High Court's order was upheld.
Law Points
- Article 12 of the Constitution of India
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Writ jurisdiction against non-state entities
- Public duty test
- Deep and pervasive control test
