Haridev S. v. The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank; The Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS); Union of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 28538 of 2016 (N) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ------------------------HARIDEV S., S/O SAHADEVAN, VALIYAKULANGARA, CMC-20, CHERTHALA, POST CHERTHALA, PIN:688 524, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** ||**BY ADV. SRI.T.ASAFALI.**| |---|---| |**RESPONDENT(S):**|| |**-------------------------**|| |**1.**|**THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,**| ||**CANARA BANK, RECRUITMENT CELL,**| ||**HUMAN RESOURCE WING, HEAD OFFICE,**| ||**JEEWAN PRAKASH BUILDING,**| ||**113/1 JC ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.**| |**2.**|**THE CHAIRMAN,**| ||**INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION,**| ||**IBPS HOUSE, NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC,**| ||**90 FEET, DP ROAD, OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,**| ||**P.B.NO.8587, KANDIVALI (E), MUMBAI-400 101, INDIA.**| |**3.**|**UNION OF INDIA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK,**| ||**CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 011.**| **.....2/-** **-: 2 :-** ## **WP(C).No. 28538 of 2016 (N)** ## *** ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED** ## **4. RAJAGIRI BUSINESS SCHOOL, RAJAGIRIVALLEY P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI.** *** ADDL. R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/08/2016.** **R1 &R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON,** **SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA. ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, C.G.C. ADDL. R4 BY TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2016, THE COURT ON 24/11/2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 28538 of 2016 (N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 20TH MARCH 2012.** - **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26TH APRIL 2014 (NO.2312184) ISSUED IN PROOF OF QUALIFICATION ISSUED BY RAJAGIRI BUSINESS SCHOOL.** - **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF MARK CARD DATED NIL OF CBSE-UGC-NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST NET (NET) IN THE YEAR 2015.** - **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES STATING THAT THE PGDM IS EQUIVALENT TO MBA.** - **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BANGALORE (IIMO).** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.11.2015 OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION IBPS) PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.12.2015 OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE COMMON WRITTEN EXAMINATION RESULTS WITH MARKS AND ALSO THE ALLOTTED BANKS DATED NIL.** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29TH JUNE 2016 CANCELLING THE PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.07.2016 SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.07.2016 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.07.2016.** ## **WP(C).No. 28538 of 2016 (N)** **EXHIBIT P14; TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.07.2016 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO SRI. ARUN JAITLY, HON'BLE UNION MINISTER FOR FINANCE, NEW DELHI, REQUESTING TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT MADE AS PER EXT.P10.** **EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI MADE IN WP(C).NO. 7015/2016 & CM NO.28832/2016 DATED 07/09/2016.** **EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO. AD/(ACAD/GEN CORRES/2016 DATED 10/08/2016 OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION.** **EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE FILE NO.431/41-19/MCP(M)/95 DATED 01/03/2007 INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION.** **EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE BANK OF BARODA NO.BCC.RTI.PIO.108/491 DATED 09/08/2016.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.R1A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/08/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.28538 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] November, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: - _“i) to call for the records relating to the issuance of Exhibit P10 order cancelling provisional allotment of the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Marketing Officer (Scale I) issued by the 1[st] respondent and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or any other writ, or order or direction;_ - _ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order commanding the 1[st] respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post (Marketing Officer (Scale I) in terms of the provisional allotment made by 2[nd] respondent on the basis of his performance in the Common Written Examination (CWE) and interview;”_ 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P10 order issued by the 1[st] respondent cancelling the provisional appointment in the 1[st] respondent Bank. The petitioner contends that he has B.Tech Degree and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM), which is equivalent to MBA certified by Exhibit P4. The petitioner also contended that the 2[nd] respondent, which conducted online examination for the Common Recruitment Process (CRP) for selection of personnel in Specialist Officer's post in various banks had issued provisional allotments to various candidates who are _**WP(C).28538/16**_ 2 holding PGDM. The petitioner contends that there is no justification for denial of opportunity to him by Exhibit P10, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4[th] respondent. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P2 diploma possessed by the petitioner has been recognized by the Association of Indian Universities as equivalent to MBA Degree of an Indian University by Exhibit P4 communication dated 21.5.2012. It is further contended that the syllabus is identical to that of MBA. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner's documents had been verified at the time of interview and cleared. He was issued with an order of provisional allotment. Thereafter, by Exhibit P10 dated 29.6.2016, the 1[st] respondent had informed him that his diploma was not a qualification stipulated by the IBPS. Though he had preferred representations before respondents 1 and 2, Exhibit P13 reply was issued by the IBPS stating that since the allotment was _**WP(C).28538/16**_ 3 subject to the candidate fulfilling criteria to the satisfaction of participating organisations, such appointment was liable to be cancelled at any time on finding that the qualifications were not as prescribed. 5. This Court, as per interim order dated 31.8.2016, directed respondents 1 and 2 to keep one post of Specialist Marking Officer (Scale-I) notified as per Exhibit P3 selection notice vacant. The petitioner has produced orders of the High Court of Delhi as well as Exhibit P16 communication from the AICTE dated 10.8.2016 stating that PGDBM course approved by AICTE till 2006-2007 was renamed as PDGM in 2007-2008 on the basis of the recommendation of the All India Board of Management Studies. Exhibit P17 dated 1.3.2007 issued by the AICTE to that effect is also produced and relied on. On the strength of Exhibit P18 reply issued to a query under the Right to Information Act by the Bank of Baroda, it is contended that persons with PGDM qualification have secured appointment in other Banks on the basis of the very same selection. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavits. The IBPS contends that it is only a Society under the Societies _**WP(C).28538/16**_ 4 Registration Act and is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that MBA, PGDBA and PGDBM were the qualifications prescribed and Exhibit P2 does not satisfy the required qualification. It is further stated that interviews were conducted by participating Banks coordinated by the Nodal Bank and the provisional allotment of a candidate does not constitute an offer of employment. The 2[nd] respondent further contended that it only conducts the selection of candidates and it is for the participating Banks to decide on the question of sufficiency of qualifications and that the appointment of persons with same qualification is not supported by any 'document'. 7. The 1[st] respondent employer has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner had wrongly indicated his qualification as PGDBM in Marketing in Exhibit P7 application, which was the reason for the processing of his application. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in _**State of Rajasthan and others v. Lata Arun**_ [(2002) 6 SCC 252], it is contended that the qualifications of candidates and the equivalence are matters to be considered by the employer and courts should not enter into the realm of administrative function to decide whether _**WP(C).28538/16**_ 5 a particular qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. It is contended that the wrong acceptance of the qualification by other Banks cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the petitioner, who was not qualified as per the notification. In view of the petitioner's admitted lack of prescribed qualification, it is contended that the wrong clearance in an interview would not confer any right on the petitioner for continuance in service. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the additional 4[th] respondent would submit that the AICTE is the authority to grant recognition for management courses conducted by private colleges. It is submitted that the PGDM course conducted by the additional 4[th] respondent is recognised by the AICTE as being equivalent to MBA. He supports the contentions of the petitioner. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to contend that even where the petitioner had participated in a selection without possessing the prescribed qualifications, once it is found that the qualifications are equivalent to the prescribed qualification, appointment cannot _**WP(C).28538/16**_ 6 be denied to them. A Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to consider the said position in W.A.Nos.313 and 404 of 2016 _**.**_ The contention raised by the respondents that Exhibit P2 diploma cannot be considered as being an equivalent qualification to the prescribed qualification cannot be accepted in view of Exhibits P16 and P17 communications issued by the Association of Indian Universities and AICTE respectively. The AICTE is the authority empowered to recognize degrees and diplomas conducted by private colleges in Management Studies. They have categorically held that the diploma possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to PGDM which is the prescribed qualification. The Association of Indian Universities has also issued communications stating that PGDM possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to MBA Degree for the purpose of continuing education and research in Universities. The petitioner has also succeeded in proving with the aid of documents obtained by him under the Right to Information Act that persons with PGDM have been appointed in other participating Banks on the basis of the self same selection initiated by Exhibit P6. 7 _**WP(C).28538/16**_ In the above circumstances, I am of the view that Exhibit P10 order is absolutely unsustainable and vitiated by complete non application of mind. Exhibit P10 is set aside. It is declared that the appointment of the petitioner taking note of Exhibit P2 diploma as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by Exhibit P6 is valid and proper. The petitioner shall, therefore, immediately be permitted to join duty in the 1[st] respondent Bank within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** _vgs_