SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for quashing of the entire selection process undertaken by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) on behalf of the respondent No.2/Bank of India, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.7.2011. He has also questioned the selection of the respondent No.3 in the OBC category to the post of Law Officer Scale-I and prays that he be appointed with the respondent No.2/Bank in place of the said respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/Bank had issued an advertisement dated 15.7.2011, inviting applications for making appointments to the posts of Marketing Executive (MBA) Scale-I, Marketing Executive (MBA) Scale-II and Law Officers Scale-I, for filling up a total of 295 vacancies. For the said purpose, respondent No.2/Bank had approached the IBPS for undertaking the recruitment process for the aforesaid posts. The dispute in the present case revolves around the post of Law Officers Scale-I, where there existed three vacancies (OBC-2 and General-1). The examination for the said post was structured by the respondent No.2/Bank in two parts. The first part comprised of the written examination, that was to be conducted by the IBPS and the second part comprised of an oral interview, that was to be conducted by the respondent No.2/Bank. The total marks assigned by the respondent No.2/Bank to the written examination and the interview were 200 and 100 respectively.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his application for the subject post under the OBC category and along with the other candidates, he sat in the written examination that was held in Delhi. Vide letter dated 26.11.2011, the respondent No.2/Bank called the petitioner for an interview for the subject post that was conducted at Mumbai on 2.12.2011. The petitioner claims that he was not intimated about the final outcome of the examination. Later on, the respondent No.2/Bank had displayed the result of the aforesaid test on its website and against three vacancies for the post of Law Officer, the names of only two successful candidates were displayed. Thereafter, the petitioner adopted the RTI route to gather some information about the results from the respondent No.2/Bank.