PRAVEEN KUMAR v. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & Ors.

Counsel for the petitioners led by Mr. Partha Sarthy, appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 2704/2009, has basically questioned the said decision of the Bank on the ground of its being arbitrary by taking a specific plea that 4 when they were declared in the concerned University examination to have passed their graduation examination with Honours in the concerned subject with more than 55% marks, the view taken by the authorities of the Bank at the stage of final interview that in aggregate they had not secured such 55% marks in their graduation examination is patently incorrect. It was in this context that the counsel for the petitioners had referred to the earlier past practice in the Bank and also in the similar other organizations wherein the marks secured by the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Probationary Officer in the Honours examination was taken to be the qualifying criteria of securing marks in the graduation examination. It was also pointed out by them that Patna University at least, from which some of the petitioners and/or their wards had passed such graduation examination, was always declaring result on the basis of marks secured in the Honours papers alone and marks secured in subsidiary subject did not qualify for grading of a student, inasmuch as, only requirement was to 5 have passed in those subsidiary subjects. Finally it was also submitted that the Bank having allowed the petitioners/ their wards to appear in the preliminary examination and the main written examination and also to have declared them successful in the aforesaid two examinations is stopped from raising the issue of petitioners being disqualified and/or ineligible at the stage of final screening through group discussions and interview. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, has however submitted that the Bank does not dispute the academic achievements of the petitioners and/or their wards or their marks secured in their honours examination but as the terms of the advertisement itself postulated eligibility criteria aggregate marks secured in such qualifying graduation examination, the action of the Bank of judging the candidature on the basis of aforementioned criteria cannot be faulted with when it is an admitted fact that none of the petitioners or their wards in three writ petitions in aggregate had secured 55% or 6 above marks in the examination. He has further explained that the advertisement itself had made it abundantly clear that the verification of marks or eligibility criteria would be made only at the stage of interview and that the candidates appearing in the preliminary examination (Tier I) or in the main written examination (Tier II) were only provisionally selected candidates whose candidature would be treated to be final only after verification of their marks and/or other declarations made in their original application at the stage of group discussion and the interview (Tier III) Examination. Referring to the terms of the advertisement and the stand taken in the counter affidavits filed in all these three writ petitions Mr. Mahto has also made it clear that for an examination at All India level the Bank had to adopt the uniform criteria without being guided by the varying grading system adopted by the different Universities all over India in three/four years degree examination and as such, the petitioners/ their wards having appeared in such selection/ test for the post of 7 Probationary Officer of the Bank with their open eyes to the terms of the advertisement could not be permitted to raise a challenge to the action of the Bank strictly in terms of the advertisement. He would finally submit that in any event the past practices in the Bank or for the similar post of Probationary Officer in other Banks could not be made the criteria for judging candidature of the petitioners/ their wards whose rights had to be found out strictly in terms of the advertisement in question published by the Bank in the month of July, 2008. As the whole issue and the resultant dispute would primarily depend on the terms of advertisement, this Court would find it necessary to quote the relevant portions of the advertisement: “1. ELIGIBILITY 01/07/2008):” (a) Educational qualifications: CRITERIA:(AS ON General Candidates and others - SC/ST/PWD Candidates - Computer Literacy - 60% or more marks in Class XII and 55% or more marks in Graduation or Post Graduation. 55% or more marks in Class XII and 50% or more marks in Graduation or Post Graduation. Proficiency computer (Certificate from a institute reputed 8 or having computer as a subject in XII Graduation).” (b) Age limit: Not below 21 years and not above 30 years as on 01.07.2008. (c) … … … 2. … … … 3. … … … 4. Selection procedure: (a) Tier I- Preliminary Examination: Time 2 Hrs. (combined) ii) iv) Data (combined) Candidates will be called for an objective type examination. The objective type examination will consist of i) Test of Reasoning, ii) Quantitative Aptitude, iii) General Awareness Computer Knowledge, iv) English Language Question paper will be in bilingual form i.e. in Hindi and English except the test of English language. (b) Tier II – Main Test : Time 3 Hrs. Candidates successful in Tier-I, will only be called for Tier-II. This will be an Objective and Descriptive type examination. The objective type examination of 2 hours duration will consist of :- i) Test of Reasoning Analysis and interpretation iii)Marketing Knowledge of English Language The Descriptive type examination will be a test of English knowledge- Time 60 Minutes *For tier II, only papers of the candidates securing minimum 40th percentile in each of preliminary examination and with an aggregate 40% (35% for SC/ST/PWD) marks will be for the main test (Tier II), if ranked sufficiently high. The number of candidates who will be invited for Tier-II vis-(cid:224)-vis number of vacancies subject to availability of adequate number of merit ranked candidates, shall be as under:- General/OBC – 15 times the vacancy and SC/ST/PWD-20 times the vacancy. Candidates securing minimum 40th percentile in each of the above 4 tests and in the descriptive paper with aggregated 40% (35% ranked sufficiently high in main examination will be called for Group Discussion and interview (Tier III) in the ratio of three SC/ST/PWD) Test 9 times the vacancy in each category. (c) Tier III – Group Discussion & 40% secure Interview : Qualifying candidates will be called for Group Discussion and interview and have SC/ST/PWD) (35% aggregated marks i.e. Group Discussion and interview put together to be eligible for selection. Tier II and Tier III marks will be aggregated and arranged in the descending order for candidates who have qualified in both the tiers and depending on the vacancies selection will be made from the top merit ranked candidates in each category. Candidates will have to pass both in Tier II & III for final selection. Results of the candidates who have qualified for Tier III and thereafter the list of candidates finally selected will be available on the Bank‟s website in addition to publication in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. 5. DATE OF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION (TIER-I): 12.10.2008 (SUNDAY) and will be held at following centres. 6. ------------------ Tier II :Main examination will be held on 30.11.2008 at 14 LHO Centres as above. Tier III: Venue will be advised separately to qualifying candidates. 7. ----------------- 8. ----------------- 9. ----------------- 10. ACTION FOUND CANDIDATES AGAINST GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT: Candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars that are false, tampered /fabricated or should not suppress any material information while filing up the application form. At written examination/interview, if a candidate is (or has been) found guilty of: (i) using unfair means during the examination or (ii) impersonating or procuring impersonation by any person or (iii) misbehaving in the examination hall or taking away the question thereof)/answer sheet from the examination hall or (iv)resorting to any irregular or improper means in connection with his/her candidature for selection or (v) obtaining support for his/her candidature by any unfair means, such a candidate may, in himself/herself addition rendering booklet (or 10 liable to criminal prosecution, be liable: (a) to be disqualified from the examination for which he/she is a candidate. (b) to debarred, either permanently for a specified period, from any examination or recruitment conducted by SBI. (c) for termination of service, if he/she has already joined the Bank.

11. GENERAL INSTRUCTION: (a) While applying on-line for the post, the applicant should ensure that he/she fulfils the eligibility and other norms mentioned above as on the specified dates and that the particulars furnished by him/her are correct in all respects. IN CASE IT IS DETECTED AT ANY STAGE OF RECRUITMENT THAT A CANDIDATE DOES NOT FULFIL THE ELIGIBLITY NORMS AND/OR THAT HE/SHE HAS FURNISHED ANY INCORRECT/FALS INFORMATION OR HAS SUPPRESSED ANY MATERIAL FACT(S), STAND HIS/HER THESE CANCELLED SHORTCOMINGS IS/ARE DETECTED EVEN AFTER APPOINTMENT, HIS/HER SERVICE ARE LIABLE TO BE TERMINATED. written examination purely provisional without verification of age/qualification/category (SC/ST/PWD) etc. of the candidates with reference to documents. CANDIDATURE ANY (b) Admission WILL OF IF (c) No candidate is permitted to use or have possession of Calculators, Mobile, Phones, Pagers or any other instrument in the Examination Hall. Candidates (d) The candidate will have to appear for the written tests at their own cost, INTERVIEW are entitled to IInd class to & fro railway fare/bus fare by shortest route on production of (Rail/bus evidence ticket/receipt etc.). travel called (e) Candidates uploading more than one application for any reason will be treated as ineligible. (f) General category candidates who have written already examination Probationary Officer in Associates Banks of SBI on three occasions in appeared recruitment 11 provided the past are not eligible to apply. This restriction is not applicable to candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities, otherwise eligible. Three chances are counted only if the candidate appears for written examination. (g) OBC Certificate in the format as prescribed by GOI and issued by the inter-alia authority competent stating specifically candidate does not belong to the socially advanced sections excluded from the benefits of reservations for OBCs in the civil posts and services under the GOI with „CREAMY LAYER‟ clause should be submitted alongwith the application based on the income of the financial year preceding the date of application. The Caste Certificate should be for the financial year 2007-2008, issued or after 01.04.2008. Candidates belonging to OBC category but coming in the „CREAMY LAYER‟, hence not entitled to OBC reservation and age relaxation should indicate their (h) Attested copy(ies) category as „GEN‟ or „GEN(OH)‟ or „GEN(VH)‟ (as applicable). relevant SC/ST/OBC/OH/VH certificate should be submitted in the prescribed format at the time of Phase III(GD/Interview) qualifying. (i) Only those candidates who are willing to serve anywhere in India, including rural areas, need apply. (j) The candidates must ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility criteria and that the particulars furnished by them in the application are correct in all respects. Mere admission to the Phase I/II/III for the candidate does not imply that the bank has been satisfied beyond candidate‟s eligibility. In case it is detected at any stage that a candidate does not fulfill any of the eligibility criteria, and/or that he/she has furnished any incorrect information or has suppressed any material fact(s), his/her candidature will stand cancelled. If any of these shortcoming(s) is/are detected even 12 after appointment, his/her services will be summarily terminated. (k) Appointment of selected candidates is subject to his/her being declared medically fit by Medical Officer(s) appointed/approved by the Bank. (l) The bank takes no responsibility for any delay in receipt or loss in postal transit of any communication. (m) Print out MUST NOT be sent to the LHOs recruitment CRPD/IBPS Mumbai. (n) CANVASSING IN ANY FORM WILL BE A

12. DISQUALIFICATION. HOW TO APPLY: Candidates are required to go to any CBS Branch of State Bank of India and pay the amount of prescribes fees and get receipt from the branch. The candidates are required to apply website online through www.statebankofindia.com www.sbi.co.in. No other means/mode of application will be accepted. The last date of registering applications is On-Line is 16.08.2008. Application registration on our website will be open from 14.07.2008 to 16.08.2008. GUIDELINES FOR FILING APPLICATION ARE AS UNDER: Candidate should have a valid email id. This will help him/her in getting call letter/interview advices etc. by e-mail. Candidates must ensure that on deposit of fee, the branch issues him a receipt which should invariably mention undernoted items:- i)Journal number (7-10 digits( ii) Branch Name iii) Branch code number and iv) Date of deposit. The payment of fees should be made on or before the 16.08.2008. This date will be same for the candidates belonging to far-flung areas. Candidates should keep a copy of the Application printout and Payment Receipt (Deposit Journal No.) for their record. An „Acquaint Yourself‟ booklet candidates along with the call letter for written test. Candidates service Government offices, Public Sector undertaking including financial Natinalised Institutions Government/Quasi Banks 13 candidature required to submit „No Objection Certificate‟ from the employer at the time of interview, falling which considered and traveling expenses, if any, otherwise admissible, will not be paid. Original payment receipt will have to be submitted with the call letter at the time of the written examination. The reserve category candidate will have to produce his/her original certificate/relevant certificates interview, failing which his/her candidature shall be cancelled and he/she will not be admitted for interview. OBC candidates, availing reservation will have to produce OBC certificate with Non-creamy layer clause issued on or after 01.04.2008 at the time of interview. NOTE: The Bank would be analyzing the responses of a candidate with other appeared detect patterns of similarity. On the basis of such an analysis, if it is suspected that the responses have been shared and scores obtained are not genuine/valid, the Bank reserves his/her candidature. candidates cancel

13. Any legal proceedings in respect of any matter of claim or dispute arising out of this advertisement and/or an application in response there to can be instituted only in Mumbai and courts/tribunals/forums at Mumbai only shall have sole & exclusive jurisdiction to try any clause/dispute. LAST DATE FOR registration of on-line applications: 16.08.2008 including far flungs areas.” The first and foremost thing, therefore, which emerges from scanning of the terms of advertisement is that unlike the usual applications to be submitted by the candidates with supporting documents, here was an 14 advertisement requiring the persons to make their own declaration on a single sheet in course of filing their on-line application by use of computer and internet. Obviously in course of filing of such on-line application the Bank had no obligation to verify the candidature of any person and that is how it was made clear in Clause 11 of the advertisement that it was for the candidate to ensure that he/ she had fulfilled the eligibility and other norms prescribed in the advertisement and the particulars furnished by him/her are correct in all respect. A clear warning was also included in the said clause 11 that in case of detection at any stage of recruitment that a candidate did not fulfill the eligibility norms or had given incomplete/ incorrect/ false information or had suppressed any material fact his or her candidature was liable to be cancelled. Thus in the light of the provisions made in the advertisement when the date of Tier I (Preliminary Examination), as also the date of main written examination (Tier II) was already indicated with a clear provision for group discussion interview (Tier III 15 examination), the petitioners cannot be heard to say that merely because on the basis of their own declaration that they fulfilled all the criteria laid down in the advertisement if declared successful preliminary examination or main written examination or were called to even appear in the group discussion/ interview on the strength of their clearing the aforementioned Tier I and Tier II examination, they must be held to have fulfilled the requisite criteria of qualification. The scheme under the advertisement, in fact, did not postulate screening of the candidates by looking into their respective mark sheet and/or other documents in terms of the eligibility conditions general/ reserved candidates at the stage of Tier I or Tier II examination i.e. preliminary test and written test respectively. That being so, this Court must reject that part of the submission of the petitioners counsel appearing petitioners had tried to invoke doctrine of estoppels on account of their being declared successful in the preliminary examination/ 16 written examination and also favoured with an interview call letter. The main issue, however, still would be as to whether the advertisement had envisaged judging eligibility criteria of a candidate in respect of educational qualification on the basis of marks secured in the honours examination or over all aggregate in such graduation examination. As noted above, Clause I of the advertisement clearly envisaged that a candidate of general and other categories except S.C./S.T. or physically challenged candidates must secure 60% or more marks in Class XII examination and 55% marks in graduation or Post-graduation examination. As would be noticed there was no provision that a candidate who is a graduate must secure 55% marks in the honours subject of graduation examination. The advertisement, therefore, left nothing for speculation that a graduate or post-graduate must secure 55% or more marks graduation post-graduation examination. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the graduation examination necessarily does not mean that one who may pass only honours examination can be said to 17 be a graduate. A person can be a graduate even without offering and/or passing examination without honours subject. Thus, when the Bank had issued advertisement for the post of Probationary Officer laying qualification of graduation or post-graduation with minimum 55% marks no candidate including the petitioners can be heard to say that the Bank had postitulated 55% marks in honours subject of such graduation examination. Admittedly the petitioners had appeared while clearing their graduation examination in both honours and subsidiary subject as is also apparent from their own mark sheet on record of these writ petitions. The Bank, therefore, was fully justified in calculating the total aggregate marks secured by them both in honours and subsidiary subject. Similarly because the petitioners or their wards had secured more than 55% marks in honours subject would not mean that in terms of the advertisement in question they had also secured 55% marks in their graduation examination. The Bank in the counter affidavit in all the three cases has explained this aspect by 18 examining individual mark sheet of the petitioners/ their wards and it has been stated that the petitioner Praveen Kumar had secured 797 out of total 1500 marks i.e.

53.16% which was less than 55% marks in the graduation examination. The petitioner Praveen Kumar has also annexed his mark sheet to show that out of 800 marks in honours papers he had secured 455 whereas remaining subsidiary subject for 700 marks he had secured 242 marks in aggregate 797 as shown clearly in the mark sheet (Annexure 2). Thus, when the petitioner had secured 797 marks in all out of 1500 the petitioner Praveen Kumar could not be said to have secured 55% marks in his graduation examination. Likewise in C.W.J.C.No. 3018/2008 filed by the five petitioners, petitioners no. 1 and 3 candidate themselves petitioners no. 2, 4 and 5 being the father of the candidates, namely, Shashi Darshan, Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Himanshu Kumar, cannot claim to have secured 55% marks in aggregate, inasmuch as Annexures 3 series would go to show that they too had secured 815 out of 1500, 823 out of 1500, 812 out of 1500, 796 19 out of 1500 and 774 out of 1500. It must be noted that the marks of Ashutosh Kumar Sinha does not contain the marks obtained by him in subsidiary subject but then the Bank in its counter affidavit in paragraph no. 16 has given the percentage of all the five petitioners/ their wards to be 54.33%, 54.90%,

54.27%, 53.06% and 52% respectively. Likewise in the case of the petitioner Ratnesh Kumar in C.W.J.C.No. 2441/2009 the Bank had produced his mark sheet and has given the computation showing him to be secured 815 marks i.e.

53.86%. It has to be noted that such exhaustive details given with regard to the petitioners in the counter affidavit has not been controverted by anyone of them by filing any rejoinder affidavit and therefore, this fact that the petitioners had in aggregate not secured 55% or above marks in their graduation examination is an admitted fact. Once this position becomes clear that none of the petitioners/ their wards had secured 55% or above marks in their graduation examination the plea of the Bank to have followed the same criteria for All India 20 Selection has to be accepted in terms of the eligibility conditions laid down in the advertisement. It is in this respect that the Bank‟s stand in the counter affidavit in paragraphs no. 9 to 14 and 28 needs special mention and for the sake of clarity are quoted hereinbelow:” “(9) That from the aforesaid criteria incorporated in the Advertisement it is evident educational qualification prescribed candidate of General category is 60% or more marks in Class XII and 55% or more makrs in graduation or Post Graduation and in case of the candidates other than General Category is 55% or more marks in Class XII and 50% or more marks in Graduation or Post Graduation. It is thus obvious that the Bank requires only 55% or more marks in aggregate in graduation. It does not say that any candidate having secured 1st Class or second class in Honours Examination but not securing 55% or more marks in the aggregate in the Graduation will become entitled admittance PO examination. (10) That the candidates seeking their appointment on the post of Probationary Officer are allowed to make application on line merely ion the basis of the materials supplied by them in their 21 respective application and then they are allowed to appear in the Tier I and Tier II examination. However, when the Interview letters are issued to the candidates those becoming successful in Tier I and Tier II examination for participating in Group Discussion and Interview pertaining Tier III examination they are required to ensure Bank fulfill eligibility criteria and that the particulars given by them in the application are correct in all respects. It is stated that mere admission to the Phase I/II/III examination a candidate does not imply that the Bank has been satisfied beyond doubt about candidate‟s eligibility. (11) That, if, after submission of these relevant information/ document furnished by any particular candidate at the time of Phase III (GD/interview) it is detected by the Bank that a candidate does not fulfill any of the eligibility criteria, and/or he/she furnished any incorrect information or has suppressed any material fact, the Bank is fully entitled to cancel her/ his candidature of any candidate for further participating in the examination i.e. to say Phase III (GD and interview). It is stated that the Bio- data, the certified copies of the educational qualifications etc. 22 submitted by the applicant at the interview i.e. the phase III (GD and interview) was the first occasion for the Bank to verify and examine the qualification of the candidate. (12) That the eligibility criteria for educational qualification was proposed by the Bank in view of the valid policy adopted different institution/ Universities in awarding 1st class/ IInd class etc/ which were resulting in a non-uniform approach towards candidates. As such, a fixed percentage cut out to all candidates was proposed and approved by an expert body of the Bank as cut off for eligibility. (13) That it is stated that the Bank has decided to reckon cut off marks at 55% (General category and others) of the aggregate marks in all subjects in Graduation or Post Graduation as the case may be for all years taken together for graduation which could be 3 or 4 years depending on the discipline/ institution. It is stated that the Bank has decided to go in for cut off marks to have uniformity in approach to all candidates appearing from across the Country and the cut off marks was very specifically mentioned advertisement in terms of percentage of marks and not class/honours. (14) That it is stated that against 3500 number of vacancies of the Probationary 23 Officers in the State Bank of India, 2,05,546 candidates application on line to the State Bank of India. Out of total number of 2,05,546 candidates, about 6771 candidates were called discussion interview. The petitioner was also one of them who was called for interview. ----------------------------------- (28) That in respect of the statement made in paragraph no. 16 and 27 it is stated that the Bank has fixed 55% minimum qualifying marks in graduation and post graduation of the aggregate marks in all subjects in graduation or post graduation as the case may be for all years taken together for graduation which could be 3 or 4 years depending on the discipline/ institution. It is stated that the Bank has decided to go in for cut off marks to have uniformity in approach to all candidates appearing from across the country and the cut off marks was very specifically mentioned in the advertisement in terms of percentage of marks and not class/ honours. It is not incumbent upon the Bank to follow the procedure as what had been done by the Bank in the previous examination.” Thus, it would be seen that if the Bank had to undergo a selection process for 3500 post of Probationary Officer and the number of 24 applicants were 2,05,546 it had to evolve some system for screening the candidates only at the time of interview after the candidates had cleared such Preliminary Examination (Tier I) and the main examination (Tier II) and in that view of the matter declaration of the petitioners to be disqualified in terms of the advertisement and thus, ineligible on the ground of their having not secured 55% marks in their graduation examination even at the stage of group discussion/ interview cannot be said to be either arbitrary or irrational. In a vast Country like India where there is no uniformity in the courses of study evaluation and declaration of result of the University Graduation examination, the procedure adopted by the Bank for judging eligibility conditions of the candidates for the post of Probationary Officer on the same parameter of 55% marks in graduation whether in three years graduation or four years graduation course, whether graduation with honours or graduation with a simple pass course by itself required evaluation of the candidates on one common parameters of the total aggregate marks secured by them. That is how this Court would 25 not find even requirement of 55% marks in graduation/ post graduation examination to be arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioners also have not questioned the power of the Bank to lay down such educational qualification rather their grievance was only confined that evaluation of the candidates offering the honours course in the graduation examination should have been made only on the basis of marks secured in the honours examination. Unfortunately that could not have been done because that could have created a class by itself giving undue advantage to the students offering honours subject in the graduation examination by putting those graduates who had not undergone honours course. Thus, in a way it can be said that the common parameter of 55% aggregate marks in graduation examination was not only aimed to achieve the uniformity but also evaluating the candidates in respect of their educational qualification on a common parameter. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in these writ petitions and as such, they are dismissed. There would be, however, 26 no order as to costs. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Rsh/Surendra.