Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. vs Anit Kumar Das

2. In the advertisement itself, it was specifically mentioned that a candidate should have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English and should not be a graduate as on 01.01.2016. The original writ petitioner never challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. He participated in the recruitment process on the basis of the advertisement, without challenging the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, once having participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement, thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and that too when he never challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. [Paras 5 and 6][933-G; 935-F-H]

3. A conscious decision was taken by the bank providing eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible for the post of Peon/subordinate staff, looking to the nature of the post. Recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. [Paras 6 and 7.1][935-F; 936-B-C]

Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548 : [2003] 2 SCR 662 – relied on.

4. It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant-Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. [Para 7.3][939-D-G]

J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

(1990) 1 SCC 288; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14 SCR 1082 –

relied on.

Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)

15 SCC 596; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC

170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819 – referred to.

5. In the application/bio-data, the respondent-original writ petitioner did not mention that he was a graduate. He suppressed the material fact and declared his qualification as H.S.C. An employee is expected to give a correct information as to his qualification. The original writ petitioner failed to do so. He was in fact over-qualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job. In fact, by such conduct on the part of the respondent –original writ petitioner, one another righteous candidate has suffered for his mischievous act. Had it been known to the bank that he was a graduate, he would not have at all been considered for selection as a Peon in the bank. A candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continuance in service. Thus, on the ground of suppression of material information and the facts and as the respondent – original writ petitioner even otherwise was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement which was as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008. The bank rightly cancelled his candidature and rightly did not permit him to resume his duty. The High Court ought not to have allowed the writ petition when it was a clear case of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner. [Para 8][940-A-F] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 : [2003] 2 SCR 361 - relied on. State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar (2017) 8 SCC 608 – referred to.

6. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent – original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon as per appointment order is unsustainable and deserves to quashed and set aside. [Para 10][941-A-B]