Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar PandeyversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The petition was dismissed because IBPS is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 and the six‑year lapse with destroyed records precludes any effective relief.
Summary
The petitioner applied for the IBPS Common Recruitment Process for Regional Rural Banks and, after clearing the written exam, was shortlisted for interview but was denied participation because his experience certificate was not accepted. He filed a writ petition against the Union of India, various ministries, NABARD, a regional bank and the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) seeking a direction to be allowed to appear for the interview. The court examined whether IBPS qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Chairman, IBPS, and concluded that IBPS is a public trust, not a State, and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the court noted that more than six years had elapsed, the selection process had been completed, and the relevant records had been destroyed, rendering any effective adjudication impossible. Consequently, the petition was closed, with the petitioner directed to seek compensation or other relief from the appropriate authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) falls within the definition of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and is thus subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the lapse of time and destruction of examination records.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to be allowed to appear for the interview despite the alleged non‑recognition of his experience certificate.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 12
- public trust
- IBPS
- recruitment interview
- procedural delay
- compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2981 of 2020
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Pandey Son of Sri Ramashankar Pandey Resident of Village
and P.O.- Simri Bakulahan Patti, P.S.- Simri, District- Buxar 802135,
presently residing at HO Ajit Kumar Srivastava, Rajenderpuri, Kalambagh
Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 842001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India Through Department of Finance.
2. The Secretary Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary Human Resource Development Department, Government of
India, New Delhi.
4. The Secretary Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The General Manager NABARD, Plot C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla
Complex, BKG Road, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
6. The MD and CEO Punjab National Bank, Plot No. 4, Sectror-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
7. The Chairman Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Sh Vishnu Commercial
Complex, New Bypass, Nh-30, Ashokchak, Patna 800016.
8. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) xxx
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Singh, SC-21
For the NABARD : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
For the IBPS : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Sunit Kumar, Adv.
For the Bank : Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-06-2026
This Court has heard Mr. Pravin Kumar, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned
Advocate for the NABARD and IBPS as well as Mr. Praveen
Prabhakar, learned Advocate for the Madhya Bihar Gramin
Patna High Court CWJC No.2981 of 2020 dt.25-06-2026
2/5
Bank.
2. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied
for online examination for Common Recruitment Process for
RRBs (CRP RRBs VII) for recruitment to the post of Group – A
Officers (Scale – II) conducted by the Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection as per the advertisement, in which apart
from educational qualification of MBA in Marketing from a
recognized University, an experience of one year in the relevant
field was required for the post of Marketing Officer.
3. The petitioner successfully appeared in the online
written examination and submitted all the necessary documents,
including the experience certificate of one year and he was
accordingly shortlisted for interview. However, when the
petitioner approached before the authorities concerned, he was
not allowed to appear and participate in the interview, on
account of his certificate having not been reckoned by the
concerned authorities.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed representation before
all the authorities concerned, but to no avail and finally
preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the
respondents to allow/arrange for petitioner to appear in
interview conducted for selection having the requisite work
Patna High Court CWJC No.2981 of 2020 dt.25-06-2026
3/5
experience, on the basis of which the petitioner was previously
allowed by the respondent to appear in the interview, after
clearing the IBPS Examination.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, an
interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2021 has been
filed for impleading Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
(IBPS) as party respondent. The interlocutory application was
allowed vide order dated 17.03.2021 and the notices were duly
accepted by Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate and
subsequently, filed a counter affidavit.
6. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard
to maintainability of the writ petition against the IBPS, who is
said to be not falling within the definition of the State, as
defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is
submitted with all vehemence that answering respondent IBPS
is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950 and also the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is not a
statutory body established under a specific statute rather an
autonomous body, which aids the participating regional rural
banks and other organizations in conducting tests according to
the mandate given by them.
7. To support the aforesaid contention, heavy reliance
Patna High Court CWJC No.2981 of 2020 dt.25-06-2026
4/5
has been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajbir Surajbhan Singh Vs. The
Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai
[SLP (C) No. 18201 of 2015], the copy of which has already
been brought on record by way of Annexure-A to the counter
affidavit. Various other decisions of different High Courts as
well as of this High Court have been placed on record that the
IBPS is not a State and, as such, amenable to writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Besides the preliminary objection, an averment has
also been made that the entire provisional allotment process
under CRP RRBs VII has already been completed on
31.12.2019, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
said advertisement and it is further stated that the record of
interview was instantly sent to IBPS soon after the completion
of respective activity. Further, as per IBPS Policy for Retention
and Destruction of Examination material, all the documents
related to CRP RRBs VII project have been destroyed, hence the
respondent IBPS shown his inability to comment on the
contention raised by the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Bank
also submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, all
Patna High Court CWJC No.2981 of 2020 dt.25-06-2026
5/5
the process of selection and consequently
appointment/promotion have been completed and the new
incumbents have already joined on their respective post.
10. After careful consideration of the materials on
record and the submissions aforenoted, as also on being found
that no writ petition could be maintained against IBPS as it does
not fall within definition of State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, which is a necessary party, no proper
adjudication is possible. Besides during the interregnum period,
more than six years have gone over, and the records have also
been destroyed and, as such, this Court deems it fit and proper
to close this litigation with a liberty to the petitioner to approach
before the competent authority/Court for proper compensation
or any other reliefs for the alleged negligence or wrongful act of
the authorities concerned.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
closed with the liberty aforesaid.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.06.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.