NAVEEN KUMAR SON OF SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in the present writ petition is whether petitioner has secured 55% or more marks in Graduation which was the eligibility criteria for the Probationary Officer examination of State Bank of India.

(2.) PETITIONER was a student of B.A. History (Honours) three years degree course of Patna University. He submitted his final marksheet as supplied by the University being marksheet No. A 0102678. dated 9.5.2009 which is to be found at Page -24 of Annexure -1. As per the final marksheet given by the University of the three years combined course, the petitioner had -secured, inclusive of Part -I, Part -II and Part -Ill aggregate of 469 marks out of 800 being 119/200, 111/200 and 239/400 respectively in the three parts, his percentage thus was 58.625%. In the same marksheet there is another paper mentioned General Study in which petitioner secured 48 marks out of 100. If that is also taken into account then petitioner secured 517 marks out of 900 and his percentage would be 57%, both are above 55%. There are no other marks of any other subject in this marksheet. He qualified in the written examination at all levels. He was called for interview and then issued appointment letter and asked to join Staff Training College, Hyderabad for training at Hyderabad. Respondent -Bank then came upon other marksheets of the petitioner other than the final marksheet. These were the marksheets of second year and first year wherein marks of subsidiary papers which are not carried or shown in the final marksheet for any purpose were added and now it was shown that the petitioner had less than 55% marks and thus was found to be ineligible and disqualified consequently not allowed to join. Though the order by which the candidature has been cancelled makes no reference to these grounds, it is common ground in the case before this Court that this was the solitary ground for disqualifying him. The question that arises is whether Bank was justifying in adding marks of subsidiary subject which the University itself does not add not were shown in the final marksheet. University does not take cognizance of subsidiary marksheet, as in respect of those subjects all that is required by the student is to pass. Neither for the purposes of division nor for the purposes of merit those subsidiary marks are even reflected on the final marksheet. Those marksheets (of Part -I or II) are not final marksheet as would also be apparent by a bare look to the marksheet of those years. Final marksheet is at page 24 which gives marks of each part of three years which the University publishes that does not refer even to subsidiary. The others are the interim marksheet of different years where only requirement passing or failing in subsidiary subject is material. In my view, the contention of the petitioner is correct. The marksheet is the final marksheet that the University issues. It is not open for the Bank to lay down its own Rules for interpreting the marks as given by University which conducts the course. There is nothing in the eligibility criteria which stipulates that subsidiary marks which are not taken into account by the University itself would be taken into account. Unless there was such a stipulation in the advertisement itself, the final marksheet as issued by the University is the only relevant marksheet which the Bank can take into account. Taking any other view will lead to incongruous results. Candidate who gives only the final marksheet not accompanied by Part -I and Part -II marksheet will not be assessed on subsidiary subjects but those who inadvertently, like the petitioner annex all will suffer. The final marksheet reflects marks of each part without reference to subsidiary subjects.

(3.) MR . Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has brought to my notice a judgment of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar and Others vs. The State Bank of India and Others being C.W.J.C. No. 2704 of 2009 and analogous cases which were all disposed of by judgment and order dated 13.5.2009. In that case somewhat similar issue was involved. Brother Mihir Kumar Jha, for whom I have great respect, held that subsidiary marks have to be added also. Apparently court 'scontention was not drawn to the fact that the final marksheet as issued by the University itself does not contain even a reference to the subsidiary marks. The said judgment proceeded as if the subsidiary marks were part of the final marksheet itself which is incorrect fact or at least not there in the present case.