In a certain Banking Examination, a candidate failed to produce Community Certificate, issued during a particular period of time. The certificate, so produced by the candidate was prior to those dates and the candidate was disqualified from participating further in the selection process.
The candidate then filed a writ petition challenging the proceeding and the High Court dismissed it. Acting on his appeal, the Supreme Court, on 29 April 2019 delivered its judgement.
The High Court was of the view that the Respondent, IBPS was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and there was no public function that was discharged by the Respondent. On the said grounds, the High Court opined that the Respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court held the High Court was right about holding the Writ Petition not maintainable against the Respondent, on the ground that, conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, was not a public duty. The Respondent is not a creature of a statute, says the judgement, because of the reason that there were no statutory duties or obligations imposed on the Respondent.
The Supreme Court, further held that, "the Respondent therein would not be amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the activities were voluntarily undertaken by the Respondents and there was no obligation to discharge certain activities which were statutory or of public character."
Reference was made to the Federal Bank
case wherein it was held that "the Writ Petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in spite of the regulatory regime of the Banking Regulation Act and the other statutes being in operation."
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, on further finding that the Respondent had failed to participate in the four rectruitments those were held subsequent to the year 2013, and "as he did not participate in any of said subsequent recruitments, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief." the Supreme Court, declared.
Download Judgement Copy.
The candidate then filed a writ petition challenging the proceeding and the High Court dismissed it. Acting on his appeal, the Supreme Court, on 29 April 2019 delivered its judgement.
The High Court was of the view that the Respondent, IBPS was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and there was no public function that was discharged by the Respondent. On the said grounds, the High Court opined that the Respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court held the High Court was right about holding the Writ Petition not maintainable against the Respondent, on the ground that, conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, was not a public duty. The Respondent is not a creature of a statute, says the judgement, because of the reason that there were no statutory duties or obligations imposed on the Respondent.
The Supreme Court, further held that, "the Respondent therein would not be amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the activities were voluntarily undertaken by the Respondents and there was no obligation to discharge certain activities which were statutory or of public character."
Reference was made to the Federal Bank
case wherein it was held that "the Writ Petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in spite of the regulatory regime of the Banking Regulation Act and the other statutes being in operation."
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, on further finding that the Respondent had failed to participate in the four rectruitments those were held subsequent to the year 2013, and "as he did not participate in any of said subsequent recruitments, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief." the Supreme Court, declared.
Download Judgement Copy.
No comments:
Post a Comment