IBPS is not "State" under Article 12; writ petition against it is not maintainable.

The petitioner applied for the post of Group-A Officers (Scale-II) Marketing Officer in the Common Recruitment Process for RRBs (CRP RRBs VII) conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)

The advertisement required an MBA in Marketing and one year of relevant experience

After clearing the written examination, the petitioner was shortlisted for an interview but was denied participation because the authorities did not reckon his experience certificate

During the pendency of the writ petition, IBPS was impleaded as a respondent

The respondents contended that the recruitment process was completed by December 31, 2019, new incumbents had joined, and all examination records had been destroyed as per policy

1. Whether the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is thus amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226

2. Whether the court can grant relief regarding a recruitment process that has concluded and where the examination records have been destroyed

The court primarily relied on the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India

It applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. The Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai [SLP (C) No. 18201 of 2015], which established that IBPS is a public trust and an autonomous body, not a statutory body or an agency of the State

the principles of maintainability of writ petitions against non-State actors under Article 226 were applied

The court examined the legal status of IBPS, finding it to be a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, rather than a statutory body

Citing Supreme Court and various High Court precedents, the court determined that IBPS does not perform sovereign functions that would qualify it as "State" under Article 12

Therefore, a writ petition against IBPS is not maintainable

Furthermore, the court noted that the recruitment cycle (CRP RRBs VII) ended in 2019, and the destruction of records by IBPS in accordance with its retention policy made any factual adjudication or corrective relief—such as a fresh interview—impossible after a lapse of six years

The Court declined to interfere with the recruitment process due to the passage of time and the destruction of records

The writ petition was closed with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach a competent authority or civil court for compensation for any alleged negligence or wrongful acts by the authorities