2019 (4) TMI 1991 - SC - Indian Laws

Applications for appointment to posts of clerical cadre (Clerk-III) in Public Sector Banks - appellant was disqualified from participating further in the selection process - appellant could not produce OBC certificate within the prescribed time - State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India - scope of Banking Business - public duty or not - HELD THAT - It is true that the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the Chairmen of certain Public Sector Banks along with the Joint Secretary, Banking Division, Ministry of Finance are members of the governing body of the Respondent-Institute. There is no dispute that the Respondent is not constituted under a statute. It is also not disputed that the Respondent does not receive any funds from the Government - This Court observed that such control should be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. A control which is merely regulatory under the statute or otherwise would not make the body State under Article 12. As there is no control by the Government over the Respondent in the manner mentioned above, there are no doubt that the Respondent cannot be said to be falling within the expression State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable against the Respondent on the ground that it discharges public duty? - HELD THAT - This Court in Federal Bank case 2003 (9) TMI 707 - SUPREME COURT held that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a scheduled bank on the ground that the business of banking does not fall within the expression public duty . As the activity of the Respondent of conducting the selection process for appointment to the banks is voluntary in nature, it cannot be said that there is any public function discharged by the Respondent. There is no positive obligation, either statutory or otherwise on the Respondent to conduct the recruitment tests - the Respondent is not amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There were four recruitments that were conducted after the year 2013 but that the Appellant did not participate in any of these recruitments. As he did not participate in any of said subsequent recruitments, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition against the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Respondent falls under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the Respondent discharges public functions or duties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition against the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant on the grounds that the Respondent was not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and did not discharge any public functions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the Respondent, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the term "authority" in Article 226 must receive a liberal interpretation, but the Respondent does not perform public duties or functions akin to state actions. The Court referred to the judgments in *Andi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S.T. v. V.R. Rudani* and *Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas* to support the view that private bodies performing voluntary activities are not subject to writ jurisdiction unless they discharge public duties.

2. Whether the Respondent falls under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India:

The Appellant argued that the Respondent should be considered "State" under Article 12 due to deep and pervasive government control. The Respondent was established by the National Institute of Bank Management and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The governing body includes members from the Reserve Bank of India and various public sector banks. However, the Supreme Court found that the Respondent is not financially, functionally, or administratively dominated by the government. The Court referred to the 7 Judge Bench decision in *Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology* to conclude that the Respondent does not fall under the definition of "State" as it lacks pervasive government control.

3. Whether the Respondent discharges public functions or duties:

The Appellant contended that the Respondent discharges public functions by conducting recruitment for public sector banks. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that conducting recruitment tests is not a public duty. The Respondent's activities are voluntary and not imposed by statute. The Court cited *G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute* and *K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage* to emphasize that the nature of the duty, not the form of the body, determines whether it performs public functions. The Court concluded that the Respondent does not discharge public functions and is not subject to writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it does not qualify as "State" under Article 12 and does not discharge public functions. The Appellant's failure to produce the required caste certificate within the specified period led to his disqualification, and his non-participation in subsequent recruitments further weakened his case for relief.