AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Gaus Beg, learned counsel appearing for the review-applicant, Shri Anant Tewari, learned counsel representing the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (hereinafter referred to as "the IBPS") and Shri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel representing the Allahabad Bank and perused the record.
This petition seeks review of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24031 (S/B) of 2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the review-applicant was dismissed.
The facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of appropriate disposal of the this review petition, are that IBPS which is an autonomous body and which conducts common recruitment process for appointment against various posts in nationalized banks, issued an advertisement on 16.11.2015 for recruitment of Specialist Officers in 20 nationalized banks. As per the said advertisement, the selection was to take place through common written examination followed by interview. Once a candidate was selected, provisional allotment was to be made to one of the participating banks on merit-cum-preference basis. Several posts were advertised including the post of I.T Officer, Scale-I. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the review applicant submitted her application online for participating in the selection for appointment to the post of I.T. Officer, Scale-I. The educational qualification for the post of I.T. Officer as advertised in the advertisement dated 16.11.2015 was as under:
"a) 4 years Engineering/Technology Degree in Computer Science/ Computer Applications/Information Technology/Electronics/Electronics & Telecommunications/Electronics & Communication/Electronics & Instrumentation.
OR
b) Post Graduate Degree in Electronics/Electronics & Tele Communication/ Electronics & Communication/ Electronics & Instrumentation/ Computer Science/ Information Technology/Computer Applications.
OR
c) Graduate having passed DOEACC ''B' level."
The review-applicant after completing 4 years engineering course was awarded a degree of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) in Electronic, Instrumentation & Control Engineering from Azad Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lucknow which is affiliated to Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow which was formerly know as U.P. Technical University. The review applicant was issued a call letter to appear in the online examination which was held on 14.02.2016 and accordingly, the review applicant appeared in the said common written examination and qualified and obtained score of 162.50 out of total weighted score of 200. She was, thus, invited for appearing in the interview which was held on 14.03.2016. The combined score of marks obtained by the review applicant based on her performance in the common written examination and interview, was 73.80 out of 100 and accordingly she was provisionally allotted to Allahabad Bank against a vacancy on the post in question i.e. the post of I.T. Officer, Scale-I.
The review applicant accordingly was informed by IBPS that based on her performance in the written examination and interview and also taking into account the order of preference as given by her, she had been provisionally allotted against a vacancy in unreserved category in Allahabad Bank. However, what is noticeable at this juncture itself is that the said letter inviting the review applicant about her selection and allotment of Allahabad Bank clearly stated that the said letter did not constitute offer of employment. It was further stipulated in the said letter that in case it was detected at any stage that the review applicant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria at any stage of the recruitment process, her candidature/chance shall stand forfeited. The said letter further provided that offer of appointment along with the terms and conditions, formalities for verification and joining etc. shall be issued by the Allahabad Bank in due course. The letter further stipulated that decision of the participating organization (in this case the Allahabad Bank) shall be final and binding. Thereafter the recruitment Cell of the Allahabad Bank issued a circular on its website on 13.06.2016 depicting a list of candidates having discrepancies in their documents. In the list contained in the said letter dated 13.06.2016 against the name of the review applicant a remark was mentioned that her Graduation Degree was not as per IBPS's advertisement. The circular also required the candidates whose names were mentioned therein that they may submit their documents for further verification. The review applicant in response to the said circular dated 13.06.2016 made a representation annexing therewith proof of educational qualification and marks-sheets of her Graduation Degree. She is also said to have submitted a letter dated 14.06.2016 issued by the Registrar of Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, U.P., Lucknow which contained a recital that degree of Bachelor of Technology in Electronic, Instrumentation & Control Engineering is equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree in Electronics & Instrumentation. Another notice was issued by the Allahabad Bank on its website requiring the candidates to submit their documents who were held under provision on account of discrepancies found in their documents. A similar notice requiring submission of documents by the candidates who were held under provision on account of discrepancies in their documents, was again issued by the Recruitment Cell of the Allahabad Bank. Pursuant to the said notice, the review applicant submitted her documents on 03.09.2016 via E-mail. Thereafter she was informed by a letter dated 14.09.2016, issued by the Assistant General Manager (HR) of Allahabad Bank, that her candidature for the post in question has been cancelled as she did not possess the requisite qualification as stipulated in the advertisement dated 16.11.2015, issued by IBPS, Mumbai. Aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature for appointment, the review applicant filed Writ Petition No.24031 (S/B) of 2016 initially praying that the remark "Graduation Degree not as per the IBPS advertisement" mentioned in the remark column of the list dated 13.06.2016 at serial no.52 as well as in the subsequent lists be quashed. The review applicant also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider her case for appointment on the post in question on the basis of her allotment against a vacancy in unreserved category in Allahabad Bank. She subsequently amended the writ petition and added a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.09.2016 whereby her candidature for the post in question was cancelled.
The reason given by the respondent-bank for rejecting the candidature of the review applicant was that she did not fulfill the educational qualification as given in the advertisement dated 16.11.2015. The educational qualification stipulated in the advertisement dated 16.11.2015 has already been extracted herein above.
The educational qualification possessed by the review applicant is four years Bachelor Degree awarded to her by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, U.P., Lucknow is a degree of Bachelor in Technology in Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering. The educational qualifications as stipulated in the advertisement issued by the IBPS on 16.11.2015 do not contain a Bachelor's Degree in Technology in Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering.
Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court dismissed the writ petition vide its judgment and order dated 17.04.2018, review of which has been sought by preferring this review petition. The Court while dismissing the writ petition on 17.04.2018 recorded a finding that while submitting her online application form for the post in question the review applicant in the column subject/stream has indicated "Electronics & Instrumentation" though she is merited with a Bachelor's Degree not in Electronics and Instrumentation but in Electronic, Instrumentation and Control Engineering. The Court also considered the submissions made on behalf of the review applicant while deciding the writ petition that during course of written examination and interview, her educational qualification was checked and it is only after being satisfied about the educational qualification that she was allowed to participate in the interview and once she was declared successful by the selection body, there was no occasion for Allahabad Bank to point out any discrepancy in respect of her educational qualification. The Court, however, on examining the material on record formed a view that the issue of equivalence of the educational qualification cannot be considered by this Court as per the law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Ranga Swamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in [AIR 1990 SC 535] and in the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Lata Arun, reported in [AIR 2002 SC 2642].
Based on the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the review applicant by making observation that the eligibility qualification for recruitment in service is matter to be considered by the appropriate authority and not by the Court. The Court in its judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 has also expressed its view that candidature of the review application was provisional and subject to her fulfilling the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the advertisement dated 16.11.2015. Accordingly, it was further observed by the Court in its judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 that even if the review applicant had crossed various stages of selection process, the claim of the review applicant for appointment on the post in question was untenable for the reason that the general instructions contained in the advertisement clearly mentioned that IBPS or Participating Organization (in this case the Allahabad Bank) would be free to reject any application at any stage of the process of the selection if the candidate was found ineligible as per the stipulated eligibility criteria.
Now review of the judgment dated 17.04.2018 has been sought by stating that the judgments in the case of J. Ranga Swamy and Lata Arun (supra) have no application to the facts of the instant case as the issue involved in this case is that once application form of the review applicant was duly accepted and she was successful in written examination as also in the interview securing all India 5th rank, the Recruitment Cell of Allahabad Bank could not have refused to issue appointment letter and could not have cancelled the candidature of the review applicant by passing the order dated 14.09.2016. The thrust of the argument on behalf of review applicant is that the Allahabad Bank by passing the order dated 14.09.2016 whereby the candidature of the review applicant was cancelled, had overturned the decision of the selection committee and this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Court while delivering the judgment dated 17.04.2018. It has also been urged that considering the higher score obtained by the review applicant in the written examination and in the interview, it cannot be said that the review applicant did not possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement and further that had she not possessed the educational qualification she could not have scored such high marks and All India Rank.
Learned counsel representing the review applicant has also attempted to submit that it is not a case where issue of equivalence of educational qualification was under consideration; rather it is a case where the review applicant who is having B. Tech Degree in Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering was eligible for appointment to the post in question.
Lengthy submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant, however, what we find is that none of the parameters which can persuade the Court to review the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 exist in this case. Admittedly, the educational qualification regarding 4 years Bachelor's Degree as mentioned in the advertisement dated 16.11.2015 was not possessed by the review applicant for the reason that B.Tech degree in Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering is not mentioned in the said advertisement. By submitting the certificate dated 14.06.2016 issued by the Registrar of Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, U.P., Lucknow, an attempt was made by the review applicant to establish that Bachelor's Degree in Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering is equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Electronics and Instrumentation. The certificate dated 14.06.2016 issued by the Registrar of Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University U.P., Lucknow reads as under:
"Dr. A. P. J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY U.P.
[FORMELY UTTAR PRADESH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
I.E.T Campus, Sitapur Road, Lucknow, U.P., India-226021
Phone: +91-522-2732193, Fax 91-522-2732185 Website: www.aktu.ac.in
Dr.APJAKTU/RO-2016/7173 Dated 14.06.2016
To WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Ms. SNEHA SINGH D/o Om Prakash Singh Roll No.-0705334047 Enrollment No.070533414574 was admitted in the session 2007 and completed his Bachelor Technology in (Electronics, Instrumentation & Control Engineering), equivalent to Electronics & Instrumentation (Four Years) in 2011. He was a Regular bonafide student of Institute of Engg. & Technology, Lucknow which is an affiliated Institution of this University.
(R. K. Chaudhary) Registrar"
"Attempt on behalf of the review applicant to establish that Bachelor's Degree in Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering, which is being possessed by her, is equivalent to Bachelor's Degree in Electronics and Instrumentation makes it clear that the submission of the learned counsel for the review applicant that in the instant case issue of equivalence of educational qualification did not arise, cannot be accepted. Further submission of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that once the review applicant was permitted to appear in the written examination as also in the interview on scrutiny of her educational qualification by IBPS which is the selection body and comprises of experts, the candidature of the review applicant could not have been cancelled by the recruitment cell, is also erroneous as the advertisement itself mentioned in clear terms that if at any stage of recruitment process it was detected that the candidate did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, his/her candidature shall stand forfeited.
We may also refer to the letter issued by the IBPS whereby the review applicant was informed about her selection for the post in question and her allotment to Allahabad Bank. Clause 2 of the said letter clearly indicated that "in case it is detected at any stage that, you do not satisfy the eligibility criteria at any stage of the recruitment process your candidature/chance in the process shall stand forfeited". The said letter also provided that the allotment of review applicant to Allahabad Bank was provisional and was subject to her fulfilling the eligibility criteria and further scrutiny of relevant documents in support of eligibility and identification to the satisfaction of Allahabad Bank. Such stipulation, thus, clearly left it to the authority of Allahabad Bank to scrutinize and examine as to whether she fulfilled the eligibility criteria even after she was declared successful by IBPS.
In respect of the submission of the learned counsel for the review applicant that IBPS is a selection body comprising of experts and its decision could not be overturned by the recruitment cell of Allahabad Bank, we may only observe that Allahabad Bank is the employer and apart from what has been stipulated in the letter informing the review applicant of her selection by IBPS, even otherwise the employer has got every right to scrutinize the requisite educational qualification before final appointment order is issued. We may also notice at this juncture that clause 6 of the letter informing the review applicant of her selection and allotment to Allahabad Bank clearly provided that the decision of the Participating Organization (in this case the Allahabad Bank) shall be final and binding. In this view of the matter as well, the submission made by the learned counsel for the review applicant does not carry any weight.
As a matter of fact, by making lengthy arguments learned counsel appearing for the review applicant has attempted to persuade us to exercise appellate powers. Power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may entail the appellate court to correct the errors committed by the subordinate court. In this regard, we may refer to a judgment, rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court, dated 24.05.2018 in Review Petition/Application No.129598 of 2017, in re: Misc. Bench No.21298 of 2017, Qamar Ahmad vs. E.C.C. Nirvachan Sadan. Considering the issue as to what is the scope of review jurisdiction of this Court while deciding a review petition preferred to review a judgment rendered by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has clearly held that in exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. In the said case of Qamar Ahmad vs. E.C.C. Nirvachan Sadan (supra), it has further been held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. The Court has observed that erroneous decision can be corrected by higher forum and in review jurisdiction only an error apparent on the face of record can be corrected. Further observations made by the Court in the said judgment is that review jurisdiction, thus, has a limited purpose and it cannot be equated with an appeal.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the review applicant and the learned counsel representing the respondents, we find that the instant review petition/application for review does not contain any ground so as to persuade us to review the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the review applicant was dismissed.
The petition/application for review is misconceived which is hereby dismissed.