Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 367 (HP)

Arun Sharma & Ors. v. State Bank Of India & Ors.

2021-07-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) That the impugned Advertisement dated 24.04.2021, Annexure P-1 where the petitioners have been debarred to apply and appear in the examination may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioners may very kindly be allowed to apply and appear in the present examination. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the eligibility criteria about the age limit as prescribed by the respondent for the various posts for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court qua the different age criteria for entrance test for recruitment of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales). (iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants." 2. The case of the petitioners is that vide Advertisement dated 27.04.2021 (Annexure P-1), online applications were invited by the respondent-Bank for recruitment of eligible candidates against the posts of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales). The dates for online registration of application and payment of fees, as mentioned in the Advertisement, were between 27.04.2021 to 17.05.2021, which the Court stands informed, were subsequently extended on account of COVID-19 pandemic. In all, around 5000 posts were advertised, including about 180 posts for various branches of the respondent-Bank in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement was that a candidate ought to be not below the age of 20 years and not above 28 years as on 01.04.2021. The Court is purposely not referring to the other eligibility criterion mentioned in the Advertisement, because the age limit is the only bone of contention, as far as the grievance of the present petitioners is concerned. Their grievance in fact is that the fixation of maximum age limit for recruitment against the post of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales), as is reflected in the Advertisement, Annexure P-1, is arbitrary, which is borne out from the fact that the same Bank while issuing Advertisements against the posts of Pharmacist in Clerical Cadre as also Probationary Officers, has fixed the upper age limit as 30 years. Annexure P-2 appended with the petition is the Advertisement issued for recruitment of Pharmacist in Clerical Cadre and Annexure P-3 is the Advertisement issued by the respondentBank for recruitment of Probationary Officers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are eligible to participate in the process of selection to the post in issue, as they possess the necessary educational qualifications, but they have been debarred from participating in the process on the basis of an arbitrary and irrational age criteria, which has been provided for in the advertisement. He has further submitted that the prescribed age is arbitrary, is further borne out from the fact that the respondent-Bank cannot be permitted to have different age brackets for recruitment of Clerical Cadres in the Bank, may be under different nomenclatures. On these basis, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the fixation of age for recruitment of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales), as is provided in the Advertisement is in consonance with the Rules, which govern the recruitment to the posts in issue. It is mentioned in the reply that as per the Bank Recruitment Policy, the minimum age for recruitment to the post in issue is 20 years and maximum age is 28 years, as on the cut off date. It is the stand of the respondent-Bank that the selection age criteria for the post of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales) is same and similar, as is prescribed in other Nationalized Banks in the Country and posts of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales) cannot be compared with the post of Pharmacist or the post of Probationary Officers, as far as the age of eligibility is concerned, because the Bank has fixed the minimum and maximum age, taking into consideration the nature of duties of the posts in question and also the minimum qualifications etc. which a candidate has to possess for being engaged against a post in issue. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has also handed over to the Court the Recruitment Policies of the year 2003 and 2021, which have been framed by the respondent-Bank in terms of the powers conferred upon it under Section 43 of The State Bank of India Act, 1955, which as prayed for, are ordered to be taken on record. He has also, on instructions, informed the Court that the petitioners previously also participated in the process of selection for the post of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales) and then also, the maximum age limit prescribed for recruitment against the post in issue was 28 years, which was never objected to by the petitioners. On these counts, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, so also the documents which have been handed over to the Court by learned counsel for the respondent, which have been ordered to be taken on record. 7. Respondent-Bank is the creation of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1955 Act'). In terms of the provisions of Section 2(g) of the 1955 Act, State Bank means the State Bank of India constituted under the said Act. A perusal of the preamble of the Act demonstrates that the Bank has come into existence for the extension of banking facilities on a large scale, more particularly in the rural and semi-urban areas, and for diverse other public purposes and to transfer to it the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India and to provide for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 8. Section 43 of the 1955 Act provides that the State Bank may appoint officers and other employees. Sub-section(1) of Section 43 provides as under: "43. State Bank may appoint officers and other employees. (1) The State Bank may appoint such number of officers, advisers and employees as it considers necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions, and determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service." 9. In terms of Section 2(b) of the 1955 Act, Central Board means the Central Board of Directors of the State Bank. Section 17 of the Act further provides that the general superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of the State Bank shall be entrusted to the Central Board, which may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the State Bank and not by the 1955 Act expressly directed or required to be done by the State Bank in general meeting. 10. 10. It is the said Central Board which has framed the Recruitment Policies of the year 2003 and 2021, in terms of the powers envisaged under Section 43 of the 1955 Act. A perusal of the 2003 Recruitment Policy of the respondent-Bank, inter alia, demonstrates that in terms of Clause 9.4 thereof, the essential educational qualifications for being recruited in Clerical Grade was passing Intermediate/HSC (10+2) with 50% of marks in aggregate or Matriculation with 60% of marks in aggregate and the minimum age was 18 years and maximum age was 28 years for the purpose of recruitment. The Court stands informed that these Recruitment Policies were amended from time to time and the last amendment which has been done to the said Recruitment Policy was undertaken on 24.03.2021, in terms whereof, for the post of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales), the academic qualification was fixed as Graduation/Integrated Dual Degree (IDD) in any discipline from a recognized University or any equivalent qualification recognized as such by the Central Government and the minimum age eligibility for applying for the post was now 20 years and upper age was 28 years. Thus, it is apparent and evident that the Recruitment Policies which have been framed by the respondent-Bank, in terms of the powers so conferred under Section 43 of the 1955 Act, were having the upper age limit for being appointed to the post in issue as 28 only at least from as far back as the year 2003, if not earlier. 11. Alongwith the reply filed by the respondent-Bank, they have appended Annexure R-1, Advertisement issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the post of Assistant, perusal whereof demonstrates that the eligibility criteria envisaged therein provides that the candidate must possess the age between 20 and 28 years for being eligible for applying for the post in question. Similarly, a copy of the Common Recruitment Process for Recruitment of Clerks undertaken by the Nationalized Banks has also been appended with the reply by respondent No. 2, which also demonstrates that the minimum and maximum age limits fixed for the purpose of eligibility of the candidate stands mentioned as 20 and 28 years. Similarly, a copy of the Common Recruitment Process for Recruitment of Clerks undertaken by the Nationalized Banks has also been appended with the reply by respondent No. 2, which also demonstrates that the minimum and maximum age limits fixed for the purpose of eligibility of the candidate stands mentioned as 20 and 28 years. From this, what can be deciphered is this that Reserve Bank of India and other Nationalized Banks have common Policy that a candidate has to be between the age of 20 and 28 years as on the cut off date for being eligible for recruitment against the post in issue. That being the case, this Court is of the view that fixation of age of 28 years by the respondent-Bank as the maximum age for being recruited against the post of Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales), by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory, as this is a criteria which uniformly is being followed not only by the Nationalized Banks in the Country, but also by the Reserve Bank of India. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot interfere with the age limits etc. prescribed in the Recruitment Rules by the employer until and unless, the Court comes to the conclusion that the said age limit is so arbitrary that no prudent employer would have had envisaged the same and included it in the Recruitment Rules and the same has been fixed without any rational basis and is manifestly unreasonable. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the age limit which has been fixed by the respondent-Bank for recruiting the persons as Junior Associates (Customer Support & Sales) is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it deserves interference by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, it appears that the age limit has been fixed by applying a rational basis so that there is uniformity, as far as the fixation of age limit is concerned in all the Nationalized Banks in the Country as well as the Reserve Bank of India. 13. On the contrary, it appears that the age limit has been fixed by applying a rational basis so that there is uniformity, as far as the fixation of age limit is concerned in all the Nationalized Banks in the Country as well as the Reserve Bank of India. 13. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and anr. 2019 2 Scale , in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under: "21. The legal principles which govern the determination of a cut-off date are well settled. The power to fix a cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process. A certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded as a consequence. That, however, is no reason to hold that the cutoff which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In order to declare that a cut-off is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution." 14. In the considered view of the Court, what has been explicitly held in the above judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the 'cut off date' is equally true even with regard to the fixation of 'age limit'. 15. In view of the discussions held hereinabove, as this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.