Satvinder Singh v. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection

CM-2960-LPA-2015 and CM-681-LPA-2017 in/and -1LPA-1352-2015 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CM-2960-LPA-2015 and CM-681-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1352-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 13, 2018 Satvinder Singh .....Appellant

Versus

Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present:

Mr.Suneel Ranga, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ........

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) CM-2960-LPA-2015 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

CM-681-LPA-2017 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexure R-1 is taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA-1352-2015 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated April 10, 2015 whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition on two counts. Firstly, it has been held that respondent 'Institute of MEENU 2018.08.17 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CM-2960-LPA-2015 and CM-681-LPA-2017 in/and -2LPA-1352-2015 (O&M) Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)' is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, hence, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Secondly, the candidature of the appellant for the post of Probationary Officer was rightly rejected as he did not produce a valid 'OBC' Certificate, which must have been issued by the Competent Authority during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. The Certificate relied upon by the appellant was issued on 15.03.2013.

[2] Adverting to the second point first, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is no longer interested in the post of Probationary Officer as meanwhile he has been promoted to the Management Grade, which is not less than that of a Probationary Officer. As regard to point No.1, namely, maintainability of writ petition, prima facie, we find that the issue is seriously debatable. We are, however, informed that there is already a Reference pending before Division Bench of this Court on this issue. It is, thus, not expedient for us to express any views on merit and leave the question open to be determined in the pending Reference and/or in any subsequent proceeding which may be initiated by an aggrieved candidate like the appellant.

[3] The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE August 13, 2018 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2018.08.17 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh