16 years of litigation ended because IBPS is not 'State' under Article 12.

When a Certificate Wasn't Enough: The IBPS Case and the Limits of Writ Jurisdiction

Rajbir Surajbhan Singh wanted a clerical job in a public sector bank. He cleared the written exam conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) in 2013. He was called for an interview. At that interview, he produced an OBC caste certificate issued in 2010. The advertisement required a certificate issued between April 2013 and March 2015. He had a valid certificate dated January 2014, but he didn't bring it. IBPS cancelled his candidature. Sixteen years of litigation later, the Supreme Court of India told him that the very forum he chose to challenge that cancellation—a writ petition—was unavailable. The Court held that IBPS is neither 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution nor does it discharge a 'public duty' that would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appeal was dismissed.

The Interview That Went Wrong

Rajbir applied for a clerical post in Public Sector Banks through a common examination conducted by IBPS in 2013. He passed the written test and was called for an interview. At the interview, he submitted an OBC caste certificate that had been issued in 2010. The problem? The recruitment advertisement specifically required that the certificate be issued between April 2013 and March 2015. Rajbir did possess a valid certificate dated January 2014—issued within the prescribed window—but he failed to produce it at the interview. IBPS cancelled his candidature.

Rajbir moved a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed it, holding that IBPS is not 'State' under Article 12 and does not discharge a public function. The writ petition, the High Court said, was not maintainable. Rajbir then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

What Each Side Argued

Rajbir's counsel argued that IBPS is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12. They pointed to the composition of IBPS's governing body, which includes representatives from the Government of India, the Reserve Bank of India, and various public sector banks. They relied on Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722, R.D. Shetty v. I.A.A.I. (1979) 3 SCC 489, and Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649 to argue that IBPS falls within the definition of 'State'. They also contended that IBPS discharges a public duty by conducting recruitment for public sector banks, and therefore a writ petition under Article 226 should lie against it.

IBPS's counsel countered that IBPS is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and also a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is not created by a statute. It receives no government funding. Its governing body includes government representatives, but the government does not exercise pervasive control over its financial, functional, or administrative affairs. The counsel argued that conducting recruitment for banks is a voluntary activity, not a statutory or public duty. They relied on Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others (2002) 5 SCC 111, Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733, and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage (2015) 4 SCC 670.

The Test the Supreme Court Applied

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao with Justice M.R. Shah concurring, applied a two-step analysis.

Step One: Is IBPS 'State' Under Article 12?

The Court applied the test laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas. That test asks whether the body is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. The control must be pervasive—mere regulatory control does not suffice.

The Court examined IBPS's structure. IBPS is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and also a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is not constituted under any statute. It does not receive any government funds. Its governing body includes representatives from the Government of India, the Reserve Bank of India, and public sector banks, but the Court found that this does not amount to pervasive governmental control. The government does not dominate IBPS's financial, functional, or administrative affairs. The Court held that IBPS is not 'State' under Article 12.

Step Two: Does IBPS Discharge a 'Public Duty' Under Article 226?

The Court then turned to the broader question: even if IBPS is not 'State', could a writ petition still lie against it under Article 226 if it discharges a 'public duty'? The Court applied the test from K.K. Saksena, which asks four questions: (1) Does the private body partake a public duty? (2) Is there a public element in its functions? (3) Is there a positive obligation of a public nature? (4) Are the activities voluntary?

The Court also relied on Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas, which held that a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled commercial bank cannot be termed as carrying on a statutory or public duty, despite being regulated by the Banking Regulation Act. The Court reasoned: if banking itself is not a public duty, then recruitment for banks—a service provided to those banks—cannot a fortiori be a public duty.

The Court also applied G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003) 4 SCC 225, which held that functions similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity are public functions. Conducting research and training on a voluntary basis, the Court had held in that case, is not a public duty. By analogy, conducting recruitment tests on a voluntary basis for banks is not a public duty.

The Court concluded that IBPS conducts recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions on a voluntary basis, without any statutory obligation. This does not constitute the discharge of a 'public duty' or 'public function' that would make IBPS amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

THE PLAY: If you are challenging an action by a private testing agency that conducts recruitment for banks, do not file a writ petition. The Supreme Court has now made it clear that such agencies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Your remedy lies in a civil suit or a complaint before the appropriate consumer forum.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a sharp reminder of the limits of writ jurisdiction. The Court has drawn a clear line: a body that is not 'State' under Article 12 and that performs voluntary activities—even if those activities are for public sector entities—does not become amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Pradeep Kumar Biswas test remains the gold standard for determining whether a body is 'State'. The K.K. Saksena test provides a structured framework for determining whether a private body discharges a 'public duty'.

For CFOs and founders of private testing agencies, this judgment offers comfort. Your company can conduct recruitment for public sector banks without being treated as a State actor. You are not subject to writ jurisdiction. But this also means that your contracts and processes must be watertight, because your aggrieved candidates will sue you in civil court, not in a writ petition.

The Court also made an obiter observation that even banking business conducted by a scheduled commercial bank does not constitute public duty (following Federal Bank). This implies that the bar extends broadly across the financial services sector. If a bank itself is not discharging a public duty, then an agency that recruits for that bank certainly is not.

The Bottom Line

If you are a candidate aggrieved by a decision of a private testing agency like IBPS, do not file a writ petition. The Supreme Court has held that such agencies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Your remedy lies elsewhere—in a civil suit for damages or specific performance, or in a complaint before the appropriate consumer forum. The Court has drawn a clear line: voluntary activities, even for public sector entities, do not become public duties. Know your forum before you file.