Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jisha K vs State Bank Of India And Anr on 2 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115449
CWP-23467-2017 -1- 2023:PHHC:115449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 CWP-23467-2017
Date of Decision : 02.09.2023
Jisha K ......... Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India and another ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Ms. Savita Bhandari, Advocate and
Mr. Kanav Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
Mr. BPS Thakur, Advocate
Ms.Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of action of respondents-bank
specifying minimum qualifying marks in the interview.
2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement applied for the post of
Assistant Manager Statistician under OBC quota. The petitioner
successfully cleared written test and she was called for the interview. In the
advertisement, no minimum marks in the interview were specified,
however, the petitioner was not selected on the ground that she has failed to
secure minimum marks in the interview.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115449
CWP-23467-2017 -2- 2023:PHHC:115449
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents in
an arbitrary and whimsical manner have specified minimum marks of
interview. The respondents did not specify minimum marks of interview in
the advertisement, thus, action of respondents is unjustified and arbitrary.
The petitioner cleared written test and was duly eligible for the
appointment, however she has been rejected only on the sole ground that
she has not secured minimum prescribed marks in the interview.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
respondents advertised posts on 04.10.2016. Written test was conducted on
20.01.2017 and interview was conducted on 09.03.2017. In the
advertisement, it was categorically disclosed that to be eligible for the post,
candidates must have to secure equal to or more than the minimum
qualifying marks in the interview. The respondent-bank on 04.10.2016
specified minimum qualifying marks of interview. There is no allegations
of malice as well as favoritism. Two seats have remained vacant. The
criteria of minimum marks has been applied to all the applicants, thus, the
petitioner cannot claim any prejudice. To buttress his contention, learned
counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of
Delhi, 2018 (14) SCC 129.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. The petitioner applied for the post pursuant to advertisement
dated 04.10.2016. The extracts of the advertisement which are relevant for
the adjudication of the present petition are reproduced as below :
b) To be eligible for being short-listed for interview,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115449
CWP-23467-2017 -3- 2023:PHHC:115449
candidate have to score equal to or above the Cut-off
marks to be decided by the Bank for the PK test, besides
scoring equal to or above the Minimum qualifying
marks in other tests.
c) Candidates must secure equal to or more than the
minimum qualifying marks (to be decided by the Bank)
in interview to be considered for selection. In the
interview, the candidate can opt for Hindi also.
7. The respondent-bank vide note dated 04.10.2016, which was
produced during the course of hearing, has prescribed minimum qualifying
marks for the interview. The relevant extracts of the note read as:
"In interview out of 25 marks, General Category
Candidates will have to score minimum 10 marks (40%) and
Reserved Category (SC/ST/OBC/PWD) candidates have to
score 9 marks (35%) for being considered for selection. Merit
list will be prepared on the basis of aggregate marks obtained
in Professional Knowledge (out of 100 marks) and interview
(out of 25 Marks). Qualifying standards in interview have been
approved vide CHRC Note HR/CM/CHRC/Mtg No. 17/2011-
12 dated 13.06.2012. In case more than one candidate score
the cut off marks (common mark at cut off point), such
candidates will be ranked according to their age in descending
order, both in the select list as well as in the wait list."
8. From the perusal of advertisement and note dated 04.10.2016,
it comes out that the respondent-bank has duly specified minimum
qualifying marks of the interview. The note dated 04.10.2016 was not
made public, thus, there seems to be some lapse on the part of the bank,
however, in the absence of any malafide intention on the part of the bank or
an endeavour to favour someone, it cannot be concluded that respondent-
bank has caused prejudice to the petitioner. It is not a case of change of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115449
CWP-23467-2017 -4- 2023:PHHC:115449
rule of game. The respondent-bank specified minimum marks even prior to
written exam. The date of advertisement and note is same i.e. 04.10.2016.
It is apt to notice here that there were 05 posts meant for OBC and
respondent-bank had filled only 03 posts. It means many candidates were
found unfit on account of non-securing qualifying marks in the written test
or interview. There was no question to adjust someone to the prejudice of
others.
9. In the wake of aforesaid facts and findings, this Court finds
that the present petition is devoid of merit, thus, deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
02.09.2023 JUDGE
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115449
4 of 4
