Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In a judgment of writ petition filed by Manoj Kumar an applicant of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (T.N.P.S.C) examination. The HC of Madras answered the question that “whether the employees working under Reserve Bank of India can be considered as government servant or not” by observing that: -
“The fact that the Central Government has persuasive control over RBI would not make its employees Central Government employees. It is true that RBI is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Even then it cannot be said that its employees are all regular Government employees”.
The Petitioner Manoj Kumar has applied for examination of Group I posts in the Tamil Nadu State service conducted by T.N.P.S.C. The application form questionnaire included a column asking “Are you a government employee” the answer to which must be given in “Yes” or “No” by the applicants. The candidate with best of his knowledge answered “No” to the question as he was an employee under RBI which does not make him a “government employee”. However, even after the petitioner passing the said examination was rejected on the pretext of “Failure to disclose the material information” about his employment status.
The issue raised before the HC was whether by answering “No” to the question does the applicant has failed to disclose the material information about his employment. The division judge bench of the HC opined that T.N.P.S.C in its application form questionnaire has only sought an answer to the question that “whether the candidate is a government employee or not” which was duly answered by the petitioner. A candidate working under banks and other local bodies were not given an opportunity to disclose their employment status and thereby petitioner by answering “NO” has not failed to disclose any material information. It is a failure on part of T.N.P.S.C and not the candidate that there was no column for the applicants to disclose their current employment status. Therefore, in effect to the above judgement, HC directed T.N.P.S.C to take further action to appoint the petitioner for the post.
86540
103860
630
114
59824