NEERAJ KUMAR CHADHA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The petitioner is party-in-person. The prayer of the petitioner is for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondent- Bank for issuing letter of appointment for the post of Manager (Credit). The petitioner submits that the respondent-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short) issued Notification on 1st August 2012 for online registration and the petitioner registered his application for the post of Manager (Credit) and the petitioner got qualified for interview and appeared before the Bank for selection. He further submits that he was qualified and eligible to be selected to the said post. However, when the select list was published, his name was not found in the select list. In his application, the petitioner claimed his case for consideration by extending relaxation of five years since he was ordinarily domiciled in the State of Jammu and Kashmir during 1st January 1980 to 31st December 1989. He made a request to the Bank by submitting application under Right to Information Act, to furnish the reasons for non-selection of his candidature. The Bank, while issuing endorsement dated 21st March 2013, informed him that he was not found eligible, as he was over-aged as on cut-off date. It has been understood by the petitioner that the reasons assigned for rejection was not relying on the notification issued by the Government of India under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by its notification dated 10th April 1987. In the said Notification, the age relaxation was given to "all" persons who had ordinarily been domiciled in the State of Jammu and Kashmir during the period from 1st January 1980 to 31st December 1989. This Notification, was marked to the Nationalised Banks and Department of Banking. Despite the same, the Bank has not considered his case just by relying upon the notification issued on 9th August 1995 in F.No.5/1/5/92-IR, in which relaxation was provided only to the persons domiciled the Kashmir in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, the impugned action of the Bank in not extending the relaxation is contrary to law and also to the Notification Annexure-G dated 10th April 1987. Accordingly, he prays for a direction to the Bank in the nature of writ of mandamus for consideration of his case. He further submits that this relaxation of five years has been extended in all the departments of Government, and under these circumstances, refusing to carry out the fiat issued by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is arbitrary and unconstitutional on the part of the Bank. The petitioner has produced the Official Memorandum issued by Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as 'DoPT' for short) in No.15012/2/2010-ESTT(D) dated 10th April 1997. The Notification was with reference to consolidated orders of relaxation in upper age limit allowed to various categories of government service in which at item No.15, the relaxation was extended to persons who have ordinarily been domiciled in the State of Jammu and Kashmir during the period referred in the Notification which was made applicable to Civil service and the posts made through Union Public Service Commission or Staff Selection Commission or otherwise. The age relaxation to all the persons of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is applicable to entire departments of Government and no exclusion or dispensation is made in favour of the Bank. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the Bank is bad in law and unconstitutional; and hence the endorsement issued to that effect is to be set aside. He further seeks a direction to the Bank to issue appointment order. In support of his submission, the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. SH. SOMASUNDARAM VISHWANATH AND OTHERS, 1988 AIR(SC) 2255 and refers to paragraph 6 wherein it has been held that when a statute or the notification under Article 309 of the Constitution is issued and in case if it gets into conflict with the statute or any other executive instructions, the earlier one, i.e. the law made by the appropriate Legislature, will prevail.

(3.) The respondent-Bank files Statement of Objections. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits to dismiss the petition on the following grounds. Firstly, he submits that in the Notification itself it has been specifically stated that the relaxation of age was applicable only to the persons domiciled the Kashmir and since the petitioner is not a domicile of Kashmir, he is not entitled. Secondly, he submits that it is also made clear in the notification that any dispute arising out of the advertisement notification is subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at National Capital Territory, Delhi and hence the petitioner should have approached the Courts in Delhi. Having known the fact that the age relaxation was applicable only to the persons domiciled Kashmir, the petitioner has made a representation to the Bank to consider his case by referring notification issued by the Government of India. Under these circumstances, though the petitioner was having knowledge about disentitlement of his candidature but has made application and his application was considered and he was allowed to appear for interview. The petitioner was not selected for reasons that he was over-aged. Nextly, he submits that the Notification relied upon by the petitioner, is not applicable to the Banking Division. Only the directions or orders issued by the Banking Division of the Finance Department are binding on it. The Bank is a nationalized Bank, having its own statute which does not permit for considering any age relaxation to the Jammu Division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Notification Annexure-R1 dated 28th June 1995, specifically restricts the relaxation only to the persons domiciled in Kashmir Division. Hence, the petitioner being the domicile resident other than Kashmir, rightly he was not considered. Notification dated 9th August 1995 issued by the Banking Division of Ministry of Finance has been followed for the purpose of appointment in all the Banks and the copy of the same Notification issued to Andhra Bank, Corporation Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, Union Bank, etc. by Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is applicable to any written examination for recruitment in clerical cadre in Public Sector Banks. All the Banks have followed the Notification of 1995, in which age relaxation is restricted only to the Domicile of Kashmir and hence the Bank has not committed any error, much less contravention of the notification issued to that effect and hence submits to dismiss the petition.