Madras High Court
WP/19820/2024 of RAKESH.R.S. Vs THE DIRECTOR on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 19820 of 2024 and
WMP.No.21709 & 21710 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011172342024}
Rakesh.R.S.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Director
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, IBPS House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Off Western Express Highway, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-400 101
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, praying to direct the respondent to publish the information regarding the statistics of the total category wise vacancy, provisional allotment list with the scores as per heading “F-Cut off Score (Online Main Examination) of the Notification and reserve list with the scores as per heading “J-Provisional Allotment” of the Notification dated 1.7.2023
both with regard to ex-servicemen and disabled ex-servicemen in the State of TamilNadu.
For Petitioner(s):
C.Vigneswaran
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Thiyagesh
for M/s. T.S. Gopalan and Co.
Standing Counsel
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an ex-service man. He participated in the Common Recruitment Process for recruitment of clerks in participating Banks (CRP Clerks-XIII ) for the period 2024-2025. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has secured more than the cut off mark prescribed in the preliminary exam however, in the main exam, out of the four subjects, he did not secure the cut off mark in one subject.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an ex-service man and he is entitled to have a reservation under Ex-Servicemen category. However, in the selection list, the name of the petitioner was not there. Since the petitioner has scored less than the cut off mark, his name does not find a place in the selected list. However, the petitioner wants to know whether his name finds a place in the reserve list under the category of ex- servicemen for future reference. In this regard, he has sent a representation to the respondent on 08.06.2024. Such representation is yet to be considered by the respondent.
3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent cannot be termed as a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh Vs The Chairman,Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, reported in 2019 (14) SCC 189. Hence, prayed to dismissed the writ petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
5. Before we go into the merits of the matter, we must decide whether the writ petition is maintainable against the respondent. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment in the case of Rajbir Surajbhan Singh Vs The Chairman,Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, reported in 2019 (14) SCC 189 wherein in Paragraph Nos.22 and 23, it has been held as follows:- “22. The relevant questions, according to this Court in K.K. Saksena, to be answered for the purpose of deciding whether a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 are:
(a) Whether a private body which is a non- governmental organisation partakes the nature of public duty or State action?
(b) Whether there is any public element in the discharge of its functions?
(c) Whether there is any positive obligation of a public nature in the discharge of its functions?
(d) Whether the activities undertaken by the body are voluntary, which many a non-governmental organisation perform?
23. The respondent Institute has been set up for the purpose of conducting recruitment for appointment to various posts in public sector banks and other financial institutions. Applying the tests mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in holding that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent. Conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, is not a public duty. The respondent is not a creature of a statute and there are no statutory duties or obligations imposed on the respondent”
6. After holding so, ultimately held that Institute of Banking Personnel Selection cannot be termed as a State and the writ is not maintainable. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be given liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate forum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If he approaches the appropriate forum within two weeks as indicated above, the authorities are directed to take the application without insisting for any limitation.
7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes NR To The Director Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, IBPS House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Off Western Express Highway, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-400
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 19820 of 2024 and WMP.No.21709 & 21710 of 2024 30-09-2026