WPSB/1/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 2551 UK

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                      order with
                     Signatures
      18.08.2022                     WPSB No. 01 of 2021
                                     Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                     Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for respondent nos.

Respondent no.3 has filed a counter-affidavit raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against respondent no.3.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme court in "Rajbir Surajbhan Singh vs. Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai, (2019) 14 SCC 189", to say that writ petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against respondent no.3-Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (for short "IBPS"), as the IBPS does not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

We have perused the said judgment.

It appears that in that case, IBPS was the sole respondent in writ proceedings before the High Court. The advertisement to fill up posts in various banks was issued by the IBPS and the examination conducted by the IBPS was called in question in the writ petition.

The facts of the present writ petition are materially different, inasmuch, as the advertisement was issued by the Reserve Bank of India which is impleaded as respondent nos.1 and 2, the IBPS was merely engaged as an agency to conduct the examination by the RBI. It is the RBI which has declared the impugned result disqualifying the petitioner. The RBI has also issued the communication dated 14.11.2020 making the allegation against the petitioner of using unfair means.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh (supra) is not attracted in the facts of the present case.

The writ petition is primarily directed against the RBI. Impleadment of respondent no.3, in our view, is necessary and proper, since it is the IBPS which has conducted the examination and it is the IBPS which has concluded that the petitioner has resorted to unfair means.

It is, therefore, necessary for both, the RBI and the IBPS, to answer the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

A perusal of the counter-affidavit of IBPS shows that the same is completely vague and devoid of any particulars. While it is alleged that the petitioner has resorted to unfair means, and this allegation is premised on the identity of the answers (right and wrong) given by the petitioner and two other candidates, it is not disclosed as to who the two other candidates were; whether they took the examination at the same centre and in the same room, as the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that he shall file a better affidavit in this regard.

Let the same be filed within three weeks positively.

List this case on 14.09.2022.

   (R.C. Khulbe, J.)         (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
      18.08.2022                      18.08.2022

NISHANT