Iqbal Ahmad vs Reserve Bank Of India Thru Regional ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9167 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Iqbal Ahmad vs Reserve Bank Of India Thru Regional ... on 26 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148611
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - A No. - 27220 of 2003
 
Court No. - 5
 
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This is writ petition pending since 2003, when petitioner has declared his age about 40 years, therefore, he presently must be about 62 years as such even this writ petition is allowed, no order can be passed for appointment of petitioner in a recruitment process initiated in the year 1980 i.e. about 45 years ago, still since matter is argued on merit also, therefore, the Court proceeds to deal with rival submissions.

3. The petitioner has applied for appointment on the post of English Typist with Reserve Bank of India., in pursuance of an advertisement dated 15.10.1980. Petitioner appeared in written examination and typing test but was not called for interview, probably on ground that he has submitted forged educational certificates.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed original suit No.1863 of 1982, that he may be called for interview. The suit was dismissed by an order dated 31.05.1986. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil appeal which was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 15.03.1991 and matter was remitted to learned Trial Court to decide the suit afresh..

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Trial Court heard and decided the suit afresh, however, it was again dismissed by an order dated 13.04.1998. The petitioner thereafter filed first appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 12.05.1998. The said order and decree was challenged by Reserve Bank of India by way of filing a Second Appeal No.1322 of 1998 before this Court. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2002, dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 12.05.1998 passed by lower appellate court with direction that respondent bank shall conduct interview of petitioner.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner appeared for the interview, however, by an order dated 07.03.2003, he was declared unsuccessful on a ground that out of 50 marks, petitioner got average mark of 13.25 only, i.e. he failed to secure a minimum 15 marks as prescribed in instruction vogue in the year 1980-81. The aforesaid order is challenged before this Court. As referred above, this writ petition is pending for last 20 years.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner refers the scheme of recruitment process of class III staff of year August, 1981 and refers its clause 11 i.e. Evaluation for the post of typist that minimum 30% marks was for the purpose of written test with a minimum of 15 marks in each part and not for the purpose of interview, however, he was confronted by learned counsel for respondents with later part of clause 16 i.e. "Each member will rate the candidate independently and record his assessment on the rating sheet given to him. At the end of each interview, the members will confer and the Chairman will award a consolidated rating out of 50 marks for each candidate by taking the average. In case of doubts/border cases, Chairman will decide the number of marks to be given to the candidate. A candidate who secures less than 15 marks in the interview will be declared unsuccessful straightway. In case of other candidates, the interview marks will be added to the written test/skill test marks".

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has no answer to aforesaid part of scheme. In the aforesaid circumstances, since petitioner got only 13.25 marks out of maximum 50 marks in Interview, whereas minimum mark was 15, therefore, there is no error that he was declared unsuccessful. The Court takes note that no part of the scheme is under challenge.

9. The Court also takes note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Husen S/o Jafar Sheikh and others, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 468 placed by learned counsel for respondent that in similar circumstances, a challenge to weightage given to viva voce test to written examination was rejected in following manner :-

"9. We do not consider it necessary to refer to a long line of cases which have laid down that no hard and fast rule in this behalf can be laid down as to the weight to be given to the performance of a candidate at the interview. We, however, cannot agree with the High Court when it says that compulsory minimum passing marks for a viva voce test cannot be permissible in law. The High Court overlooked the fact that the viva voce test has relevance in regard to the factors other than those which are taken care of by the written test. Much would depend on the nature of service but it cannot be said that prescription of minimum marks for passing the viva voce test would always be constitutionally unsustainable. The performance of a candidate besides his knowledge in the academic field etc. also has relevance depending on the nature of the service or the duties and functions that he would be required to discharge from time to time. Take for example a service where it becomes necessary to test the reaction of the candidate in his dealings with the public. Next, whether he maintains his calm in panic situations or reacts sharply without weighing the situation confronting him. In such a service it is not enough that he has fairly good knowledge regarding the rules, the law and administrative requirements but it is equally important to see how he reacts in certain situations. We do not propose to multiply illustrations but it is sufficient to say that the viva voce test is as important as a written test and prescription of minimum pass marks will not per se make a rule unconstitutional. His performance both at the written test and the oral test would give the selector an integrated idea of the candidate's personality. This Court had an occasion to consider more or less a similar point in Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab [(1991) 1 SCC 662 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 555 : (1991) 16 ATC 495] , Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [(1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052 : (1991) 16 ATC 928] and Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Capt. K.C. Shukla [(1993) 1 SCC 17 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 114 : (1993) 23 ATC 407] wherein also this Court pointed out that no hard and fast rule could be laid down as to the percentage of minimum marks to be prescribed for clearing the viva voce test because much would depend on the diverse factors which must enter consideration for evaluating the candidate's worth. In Mohinder Sain case [(1991) 1 SCC 662 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 555 : (1991) 16 ATC 495] this Court pointed out in paragraph 30 at page 680 as under.

? In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88] it was held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter determined by experts. The court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the court to pronounce upon it ??"

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, and since admittedly petitioner was failed to secure minimum 15 marks in Interview as required in terms of recruitment criteria, therefore, petitioner was rightly declared unsuccessful as well in view of State of Maharasthra (supra) no case is made out for causing interference in impugned order, therefore, writ petition is dismissed.

August 26, 2025

P. Pandey