Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1991 - SC - Indian LawsApplications 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.
|