ASHOK KUMAR BHOMIA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as a clerk with the Central Bank of India at Gwalior. He is also entitled to promotion from the cadre of clerks to the cadre of officers. The Bank conducted an All India Service Test for determining the eligibility for this promotional exercise. This exercise was undertaken by respondent No. 3, namely, Institute of Indian Banking Personnel Services (formerly known as NIBM ). The petitioner was unsuccessful. He challenged the result of the examination on the ground that in test booklet of the petitioner the answers were serially quoted in a manner which was different from other answer books. The above assertion is sought to be illustrated by making a reference to the question which is to the effect - "where is the Taj Mahal situate?" Five options have been given. There is difference in the booklet and answer-sheet as to correct answer. According to the petitioner, if he gives answer number then the computer is going to be fed accordingly and he would not get the correct marks even though his answer is right. He further submits that there would be minus marking for giving wrong answer. It is mentioned that there are about 10-12 such wrong questions of this nature. It is further stated that the discrepancy was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of the examination hall. A representation, copy whereof is Annexure P/3, has been placed on record. It is because of this printing which is full of mistakes, the petitioner seeks relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 has not filed any return. The respondent-bank has taken a stand that as the test was not conducted by it but was conducted by respondent No. 3, it is not answerable for the lapse, if any committed by respondent No. 3. It is also argued that respondent No. 3, who conducted the test, is not an authority for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, that stand taken by the Bank is simple. According to it, this is the matter regarding which no judicial review is permissible.

(3.) I am of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the bank.