SUNIL KUMAR Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of letters patent appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. By order dated 12.1.96 the Bench directed that the appeals be listed for hearing before a Full Bench. That is how these appeals have come up for disposal before this Bench. The Appellants in these appeals were the writ Petitioners in the writ petitions filed before this Court challenging the action of the Respondent-Indian Institute of Bankers canceling the result of the associate examination held in December, 1990 and debarring them from appearing at the examinations of the institute upto 31st December 1995. C.W.J.C. Nos. 1574, 1579, 1580, 2295 and 2296 of 1995 were rejected by a common judgment and order dated 2.8.1995 passed by a learned Judge of this Court following the Division Bench decision of this Court, Kundan Bharthuar and Ors. V/s. State Bank of India and Ors.,1995 1 PLJR 449 which held that the Respondent-Institute of Bankers is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and was also not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1127, 1028, 1027, 1029 and 1026 of 1995 have been preferred against the aforesaid common judgment and order. C.W.J.C. No. 927 of 1995 was also dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 28.5.95 following his earlier judgment and this has given rise to L.P.A. No. 1291 of 1995. Similarly, C.W.J.C. No. 4151 of 1995 was rejected by the learned Judge on 7.9.95 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 1303 of 1995. In all these appeals the questions which arise for consideration are common, namely, whether the consideration are common, namely, whether the Respondent-Indian Institute of Bankers is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and whether the Respondent-Indian Institute of Bankers is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I may at the threshold indicate that both these questions have been answered in the negative by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also by the High Courts of Orissa, Bombay, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh. As noticed earlier, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court also reached the same conclusions. It was urged before us that the Division Bench judgment of this Court required reconsideration in the light of the later decisions of the Supreme Court, 1989 AIR(SC) 167, 1988 AIR(SC) 469, 1993 1 SCC 645.

(3.) The facts of the cases are similar and, therefore, I shall take the representative facts from C.W.J.C. No. 2296 of 1995 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 1026/95.