NEETU Vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the letters dated 21.8.2015, 03.11.2015 and 18.2.2016 issued by the respondent No.3, cancelling her appointment to the post of a Probationary Officer with the respondent/Bank. Further, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to appoint her on the post of a Probationary Officer in terms of the communication dated 01.4.2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3, who appears on advance notice, opposes the maintainability of the present petition in this Court as he states that the petitioner who is a resident of Ghaziabad, had participated in the online test at Ghaziabad and further, the impugned order dated 18.2.2016 has been issued from the Corporate Office of the said respondents No.3 & 4 which is at Mumbai. He adds that the respondent No.2 is only a participating organisation in respect of the common recruitment process for selection of Probationary Officer/Management Trainee conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), which is also based in Mumbai. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.2.2016 on the ground that the selection process adopted by the respondents is erroneous, but in the present case, the said process was undertaken by the IBPS and not by the respondents No.2 and 3, but the petitioner has deliberately failed to implead IBPS as a co -respondent in the present case solely with the intention of trying to vest territorial jurisdiction on this Court. Instead, she has impleaded the Ministry of Finance, GOI, as a respondent, knowing very well that it is only a Nodal Ministry and no relief has been directed against the said respondent in the present petition and nor is it a necessary or a proper party.

(3.) This Court is inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3. In the first instance, the petitioner ought to have impleaded IBPS as a respondent as it is a necessary and proper party in the present proceedings, having undertaken the entire process for selection of Probationary Officers to be appointed in different Banks, including the respondents No.2 & 3 herein. Secondly, the respondents No.2 and 3 are admittedly based in Mumbai and even the impugned order dated 18.2.2016, issued by the respondents emanates from its Corporate office at Mumbai. Quite evidently, no relief has been prayed for by the petitioner against the Ministry of Finance, though it has been arrayed as respondent No.1/UOI. An actionable cause of action has admittedly arisen in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No.2 and 3 based on the impugned letter dated 18.2.2016, in respect whereof the respondent No.1 has no role to play. Merely, because the Nodal Ministry of all public sector Banks is situated in New Delhi, would therefore not vest territorial jurisdiction on this Court, unless and until respondent No.1 has a specific role to play in the matter.