Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), Holds Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

Upholding the Bombay High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah observed that conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, is not a public duty.

Rajbir Surajbhan Singh was disqualified from the selection process conducted by the IBPS for appointment to the post of Clerk in public sector banks. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on the ground that IBPS is 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 institute.

In his appeal, the Apex Court bench referred to Memorandum of Association of the Institute and observed that it is neither constituted under a statute nor in receipt of funds from the Government. The court observed that there is no 'deep and pervasive control by the Government of India' so as to call it a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

The bench also considered the issue whether the Writ Petition is maintainable against the Institute on the ground that it discharges public duty. The bench referred to K. K. Saksena judgment which laid down following tests for deciding whether a Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226:

• Whether a private body which is a nongovernmental organization partakes the nature of public duty or State action?

• Whether there is any public element in the discharge of its functions?

• Whether there is any positive obligation of a public nature in the discharge of its functions?

• Whether the activities undertaken by the body are voluntary, which many a non-governmental organization perform?

Applying these tests to IBPS, the bench observed:

"The Respondent-Institute has been set up for the purpose of conducting recruitment for appointment to various posts in Public Sector Banks and other financial institutions. Applying the tests mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in holding that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the Respondent. Conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, is not a public duty. The Respondent is not a creature of a statute and there are no statutory duties or obligations imposed on the Respondent… 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. For the reasons above, we are of the considered opinion that the Respondent is not amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Read Judgment