Chamandeep Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioners instituted the instant writ petition in the year 1992 impugning the selection/recruitment process conducted by the Nawanshahr Central Co-operative Bank Limited, respondent No. 3 (for short ''Bank'') to the post of Clerks-cum-Cashiers. Further prayer in the petition is for issuance of directions to the respondent-Bank to hold a selection afresh in accordance with law. Briefly noticed, respondent No. 3-Bank issued an advertisement dated 19.1.1992, Annexure P3, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerks-cum-Cashiers, Gunmen and Peons-cum-Chowkidars. It is pleaded that the petitioners fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Clerks-cum-Cashiers and had duly submitted their applications and, accordingly, had subjected themselves to a process of selection.

Primarily, the grounds of challenge to the selection process conducted by the Bank may be summarized as follows:

i) A criteria had been followed in the process of selection but the same was not disclosed in the advertisement whereby applications had been invited. The candidates as such were kept in the dark and no opportunity as such had been granted to furnish the certificates in support of having excelled in Sports, agricultural background, experience in Banking or Co-operative Institutions etc., whereas the weightage had been duly provided for such parameters in the criteria. It is contended that the entire motive and oblique purpose was to award marks only in favour of such few who were to be ultimately issued appointment letters.

ii) The interview letters were deliberately issued belatedly to deprive many candidates the opportunity of appearing in the same.

iii) A number of applications were entertained by the Bank after the last date for receipt of application forms.

iv) The interview conducted by the Selection Committee was a completely farce as the candidates were put only one or two questions and the interview itself in respect of each candidate lasted for a minute or so.

In a nut-shell, the case set up on behalf of the petitioners is that the entire selection process was made in an arbitrary manner and was not as per the scheme of equality and fairness in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3-Bank, a preliminary objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of writ petition itself under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It has been stated that the Bank is neither a State nor an authority covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The averments made in this regard in the written statement are to the following effect:

In so far as the Nawanshahr Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawanshahr is concerned, it is submitted that Government have absolutely no share in the Bank. Government have not stood or given any surety or guarantee for raising any loan from any financial institution. There is no nominee of State Government on the Board of Directors. All the Directors are elected. The Bank is purely involved in commercial activity on the basis of funds raised from its own sources. The functional character is not governmental in essence. It has the status of Central Cooperative Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It is not a body created by a statute and is not a statutory body or other authority functioning as an instrumentality or agency of Government or a projection of the State so as to come within the meaning of the expression of Article 12. There being no share of State Government in the said Bank, there is no deep and pervasive control of the State Government in the Bank. There being no share of Government and no nominated Government Member on the Board of Directors, there is no element of authority or command in the day to day working of the Bank. As per Bye-Laws of the Bank, Board of Directors is competent to take final decisions for the conduct of its business. There is no prior history of the banking activity having been carried on by Government and made over to the Bank. It is thus in no way an instrumentality or projection of State and is not an authority covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. M.S. Kang, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would fairly admit that a Co-operative Society is neither a State nor any instrumentality of State and as such, no writ can be issued for enforcement of fundamental rights. However, learned counsel would strenuously urge that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but would extend to cover any other body performing public duty and as such, would contend that the present writ petition would be maintainable when the action of the respondent-Bank is violative of any statutory provision. In such regard, it has been argued that the selection and recruitment to the post of Junior Clerks and Cashiers has been made in violation of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963. Learned counsel would contend that in terms of Rule 6, Clause 1, all appointments to the posts specified in Appendix ''A'' are to be made by the Board of Directors and since the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier is included in Appendix ''A'' attached to the Rules, the appointments having not been made by the Board of Directors cannot sustain.

Insofar as the issue of infraction of the statutory Rules is concerned, the categoric stand taken on behalf of the respondent-Bank in the written statement is to the effect that the Board of Directors of the Bank vide resolution No. 4 dated 14.2.1992 had delegated its powers of making recruitment to the post of Junior Clerks to a Selection Committee comprising four Elected Directors and one nominee each of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and of the Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. Still further, the Board of Directors in such resolution had also authorized the Managing Director of the Bank to issue appointment letters to the candidates selected by such Selection Committee. Copy of the Resolution No. 4 dated 14.2.1992 stands placed on record as Annexure R-3/2 along with the written statement. That apart, it has been stated that the action of the Selection Committee and of the Managing Director of the Bank stands confirmed by the Board of Directors of the Bank vide Resolution No. 1 dated 12.3.1992. Copy of such resolution is also on record appended at Annexure R3/3 along with the written statement.

In the light of such categoric stand taken on behalf of the Bank and which has not met with any rebuttal at the hands of the petitioners in terms of any replication having been filed, I am of the considered view that there would be no basis to warrant interference in the selection and appointments made in the year 1992 to the post of Junior Clerks-cum-Cashiers. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.