HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15700 of 2009 Date: 19.01.2010 Between: Addanki Swapna, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And Central Recruitment & Promotion Department, State Bank of India, Mumbai and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15700 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner herein did 3 year full time Diploma in Electronics and Communications Engineering (for short DECE) from the college of Government Polytechnic for Women, Kadapa and was issued a certificate by the State Board of Technical Education and Training. She also completed her graduation in Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) from S.V. University, Tirupathi and thereafter did MBA from ICFAI University in the year 2008. On 03.03.2008, the petitioner was appointed as Customer Relations Associate by the State Bank of India. While she was working at Puttur Branch in Chittoor District, the 1st respondent vide notification dated 26.01.2008 invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Probationary Officers in State Bank of India. The petitioner having applied for the same, appeared for the written test held on 27.04.2008. She was called for the interview held at the local head Office at Hyderabad on 29.08.2008 and thereafter by letter dated 24.10.2008, the petitioner was asked by the 2nd respondent to call on the Chief Manager (Human Resources) S.B.I., Administrative Unit at Tirupathi for medical examination along with proof of her identity. Accordingly, the petitioner underwent medical examination at Tirupathi on 29.10.2008 and 30.10.2008. However, on 30.10.2008, the petitioner was informed by the 3rd respondent that she was not eligible for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer as the Diploma in DECE possessed by her was not equivalent to the Intermediate course. Thereafter, she made a representation to the respondents 1 and 3 on 01.11.2008 requesting to consider her candidature in view of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 27.10.2001 in which it was clarified by the Government that Polytechnic Diploma Courses were equivalent to Intermediate. As there was no response, the petitioner made a further representation dated 21.11.2008 to the Chief General Manager, Personal and Human Resources Department, Mumbai requesting to consider her candidature in the light of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 27.10.2001. She also made another representation dated 29.04.2009 bringing to the notice of the 3rd respondent the subsequent clarification dated 06.04.2009 issued by the Government stating that G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 27.10.2001 holds good for the purpose of recruitments also. In response to the same, the 3rd respondent by letter dated 08.05.2009 informed the petitioner that the petitioner’s request for appointment as a Probationary Officer cannot be acceded to. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned letter dated 08.05.2009 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Probationary Officer in the State Bank of India. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that since the notification did not specify any other course or qualification to be treated as equivalent to XII class, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Diploma in Electronics & Communications Engineering possessed by her is equal to XII class. It is alleged that the petitioner knowing fully well that she was not eligible, concealed the fact of passing her Diploma examination instead of XII class and filled up the marks secured by her in Diploma in the column of XII standard examination marks. Even in the bio-data form filled up by the petitioner at the time of interview the petitioner had shown the details relating to Diploma examination in the relevant column meant for filling up the details of XII standard examination. Thus the fact that the petitioner passed Diploma examination instead of XII class came to light only during the scrutiny of her documents during the interview process. It is also explained that the candidates were required to submit their applications on-line through the indicated website and at that stage no candidate was required to submit their certificates. It is further explained that since there were several applicants who did their Diploma in Polytechnic Institute instead of studying Class XII or Intermediate Course before completing their graduation / post-graduation, the respondent Bank had sought necessary clarification from the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., which is competent to deal with Intermediate Education in A.P. regarding the equivalency or otherwise of such Polytechnic Diploma Courses with that of Intermediate course. The Board of Intermediate Education by proceedings dated 8.12.2008 informed that the Polytechnic Diploma course is not equivalent to Intermediate Course of A.P. and it did not approve the Diploma course as equivalent to Intermediate Course. In the light of the said clarification, it was rightly concluded by the respondent Bank that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as a Probationary Officer. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that in view of Clause-12 of the Notification dated 26.1.2008 making clear that any dispute / claim has to be instituted only in the Courts at Mumbai, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. I do not find any substance in the said contention since under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court has absolute jurisdiction throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction provided the cause of action wholly on in part arises within the said territories. Admittedly the petitioner appeared for the written test at Tirupati conducted by the respondents pursuant to the notification dated 26.1.2008. She was also subjected to medical examination at Tirupati. In the circumstances, undoubtedly a part of cause of action has arisen within the territory in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction and consequently the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. Clause-12 under which exclusive jurisdiction to try any disputes arising out of the said notification was conferred on the Courts at Mumbai cannot curtail the jurisdiction conferred under the Constitution of India. Coming to the merits, the eligibility criteria in the notification dated 26.01.2008 issued by the 1st respondent has been specified as under : (1) (a) Educational Qualifications General candidates and others : 60% marks in Class XII and 55% marks in Graduation / Post-Graduation … … …. … …. From the above, it is clear that the minimum marks prescribed for Class XII is 60%. It is also clear that equivalent to Class XII has not been specified anywhere in the notification. Admittedly the petitioner did not study Intermediate or XII Class and she was admitted into BCA in S.V. University on the basis of the Diploma obtained by her in Electronics & Communications Engineering. She completed the said Diploma course of 3 years from Govt. Polytechnic for Women at Kadapa with 74.59% marks and she was awarded the Diploma by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, A.P., Hyderabad. Having regard to the fact that she was given admission in BCA by the S.V. University on the basis of the Diploma in Electronics and Communications Engineering, the petitioner contends that the Diploma shall be considered as equivalent to Class XII. Since she secured 74.59% marks in the Diploma course which is much higher than the minimum marks of 60% in Class XII prescribed in the notification, it is further contended that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to disqualify her. In support of her claim that the Diploma (DECE) is equivalent to Class XII, the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 wherein the District Collectors were directed to consider the Diploma-holders also for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant under the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment provided the duration of study of th e Diploma in Commercial & Computer Practice and other Engineering Diplomas conducted by State Board of Technical Education & Training, A.P., Hyderabad is equivalent to or longer than that of Intermediate. It was also ordered that the Polytechnic Diploma Courses having duration of study as equivalent to or longer than that of Intermediate are treated as equivalent to Intermediate for the purpose of recruitment. The Diplomas referred to in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 included the Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering. It appears that a letter was addressed by T.T.D. Service Organisation’s Federation, Tirupati, on 23.12.2008 seeking a clarification whether the Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering is equivalent to 2 years Intermediate course so as to enable the writ petitioner to pursue her candidature for the post of the Probationary Officers notified by the State Bank of India. In response to the same, by letter dated 06.04.2009 the T.T.D. Service Organisation’s Federation was informed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education (PE.II) Department that the clarification issued in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 holds good for the purpose of recruitment. However, the respondents declined to accede to the petitioner’s claim stating that the clarification in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 specifically related to the appointment to the post of Junior Assistants under the Scheme of Compassionate Appointments and even the further clarification dated 6.4.2009 did not offer any specific clarification on the issue but merely reiterated the earlier position. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the action of the respondents while placing reliance upon a subsequent proceedings of the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., dated 8.12.2008, wherein the respondent Bank was informed that the Polytechnic Diploma Course was not equivalent to Intermediate Course in Andhra Pradesh. Even assuming that the Board of Intermediate Education of Andhra Pradesh has not approved the Polytechnic Diploma course as equivalent to Intermediate course, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be taken as conclusive to decide the equivalency of the Diploma course to Class XII conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court the proceedings No.C-I(3)/Acad. Sch/2008-09, dated 26.5.2008 of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, under which all the affiliated Degree Colleges to the said University were furnished the admission procedure and academic schedule for three year Degree Courses in the University. A perusal of the said proceedings makes it clear that the students who have passed the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of A.P. any examination recognised as equivalent thereto are eligible for admission in the first year of the three year Degree courses. That apart, the list of courses recognized as equivalent to Intermediate examination of S.V. University has also annexed to the proceedings. The said list at Sl.No.171 included the Diploma in Computer Engineering conducted by the Department of Technical Education, Government of A.P. Having regard to the fact that the DECE Diploma possessed by the petitioner was recognized by the S.V. University as equivalent to Intermediate Examination and the petitioner was given admission into BCA course on the basis of the said Diploma and she was also awarded the Degree, the respondents ought to have taken into consideration the proceedings of S.V. University before passing the impugned order. It is true that normally this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the decision of the competent authority with regard to the equivalency or otherwise of any qualification since this Court does not have expertise in such matters. However, this is a case where the respondents arrived at the impugned decision without obtaining the necessary clarifications/opinion from the competent authority to decide the equivalence of the Diploma course did by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decision of the respondents dated 8.5.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 19-01-2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o KLP