- (1.) The petitioner challenges the advertisement notification issued by the 3 rd respondent- bank setting the educational qualification different from the qualification given by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. The grievance of the petitioner is that the minimum qualification essential for being eligible to take the Common Written Examination (CWC) is "a degree in any discipline from a recognized University or any other equivalent qualification recognized as such by the Central government", while the 3 rd respondent - bank which is one of the participating Public Sector Bank with the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection has laid down an additional eligibility of educational qualification, that is, at variance with the educational qualification prescribed by the Institute. The minimum educational qualification for the 3 rd respondent - bank is a graduate degree with minimum 55% marks in aggregate in final year of graduation. The petitioner, who has admittedly, secured less than 55% marks has, therefore, been rendered ineligible to apply for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer in response to the advertisement notification issued, which is challenged in the present writ petition. At first blush, it seems to be a plausible argument but the counsel for the respondent - bank points out that even as per the brochure issued by the Institute, the CWE is pre-requisite for selection of personnel and a minimum eligibility for taking the test does not exclude the scope for any participating bank to set a higher benchmark as eligibility for consideration for appointment. It was not introduced by the participating bank at their own whims but on the other hand, the Institute brochure itself provides for this exception. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - bank points out to me the clause in the brochure that reads thus: "Each participating Public Sector Bank will independently issue a separate recruitment notification, specifying their vacancies and stipulating the eligibility criteria in terms of age, educational qualification, experience (if any), minimum required level of IBPS score in each component test plus Total Weighted Score (if any) etc. Successful candidates in the CWE who have been issued scorecards and who meet the stipulated eligibility criteria are then required to apply to any of the participating banks they wish to, quoting their personal details and their CWE scores. Each bank will then individually shortlist candidates and carry out their own selection processes such as Group Discussions and/ or Interviews etc. for final selection." The above extracted portion will reveal that any participating bank may set its own eligibility criteria in terms of age, educational qualification, experience etc. Consequently, if the educational qualification which is a graduate degree makes a person eligible to take a test, the proficiency in the test itself may not be taken as eligible for consideration in yet another bank, who may lay down any condition in regard to the educational qualification that the candidates must be more efficient in the graduate course with more marks what is prescribed by the Institute. I would not find it particularly inconsistent, for, after all a candidate who is securing a brochure from the Institute will know before hand that anyone participating bank may secure to itself a higher benchmark even at the threshold before he is put through a selection process. Without a specific clause for independence of the participating bank to secure different eligibility criteria in the brochure of the Institute, the petitioner's contention could have merited favourable consideration but if the brochure of the Institute allows the eligibility criteria to be fixed by more strict standards by any participating bank, then, it should only be understood that a person, who qualifies in CWE cannot complain that any higher standard has been made by the bank.
(2.) The petitioner has also a grievance about the nonselection on the ground that he had secured 154 marks but the counsel for the 3 rd respondent points out that the minimum cut off marks for OBC candidate is 158 marks while the petitioner had obtained only 154 marks. Even if the petitioner's contentions on the first issue were to be accepted, he cannot still be given consideration for selection in view of the fact that he falls below the minimum cut off marks.
(3.) The writ petition ought to fail and, therefore, dismissed.;