Court holds that being a “State” under Article 12 or a “public servant” under the IPC does not automatically make a nationalised bank a “government office” for recruitment eligibility.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate’s candidature for the post of Registrar (Higher Education), holding that experience gained in Punjab National Bank cannot be treated as experience in a “government office” under the recruitment advertisement.
Justice Dinesh Pathak delivered the judgment in Writ-A No. 15076 of 2026 filed by Satya Prakash, who had sought permission to participate in the interview for the post of Registrar (Higher Education) under Advertisement No. D-2/E-1/2024 dated 17.10.2024.
The advertisement required a candidate to possess at least 15 years’ experience at the administrative and supervisory level in a university, government office, or institution of higher education, or alternatively 15 years’ teaching experience in a college or university. The petitioner claimed eligibility on the basis of his long service in Punjab National Bank. His candidature, however, was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the bank service did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility condition.
Before the court, the petitioner argued that Punjab National Bank should be treated as a government office because nationalised banks fall within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Reliance was also placed on earlier judgments and on the submission that employees of nationalised banks are “public servants” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further contended that since “government office” was not defined in the advertisement, the term should be interpreted broadly in favour of the candidate.
The State and other respondents opposed the petition, pointing out that a coordinate bench of the High Court had already considered a similar issue in Geeta Chandra v. State of U.P., where claims based on experience in nationalised banks had been rejected. They also submitted that the employees of Punjab National Bank are not governed by Article 311 of the Constitution, which further shows that the bank cannot be equated with a government office.
Accepting the respondents’ stand, the court held that the mere fact that an entity falls within the expression “State” under Article 12 does not automatically make it a “government office” for the purposes of a recruitment advertisement. The court noted that constitutional and statutory expressions such as “State” and “public servant” operate in different fields and cannot be mechanically substituted for the phrase used in the advertisement.
The court also observed that no material had been placed to show that Punjab National Bank is a government office or that its employees are governed by Article 311. In addition, the court declined to reopen the issue in view of the earlier coordinate bench decision, especially since the special appeals against that order were pending without any interim relief.
Concluding that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility condition under Clause A(2) of the advertisement, the High Court held that the rejection of his candidature was justified. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Bottom Line :
Service law - Recruitment to post of Registrar (Higher Education) - Experience gained in Punjab National Bank cannot be treated as experience in a "government office" for purpose of eligibility clause in advertisement merely because nationalised bank may fall within Article 12 or its employees may be public servants under Section 21 IPC - Rejection of candidature held justified.
Statutory provision(s): Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Article 311 of the Constitution of India, Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Satya Prakash v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987067
