# Mushran v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 928
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-21
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 19796 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mushran-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50909
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment - Post of
Sweeper
-
Qualification
-
Maximum
matriculation was required - Petitioner
claimed himself as Class VIII passed
candidate, however, he was declared
illegible on the basis that in his KYC Form,
qualification of Graduate was mentioned -
Validity challenged - KYC Form, how far
bear significance for public employment -
Plea of inaccuracy in date of birth was also
raised in counter affidavit - Permissibility
- Held, it is a well settled principle of law
that an order under challenge before the
Court cannot be asked to be sustained by
a respondent on the grounds other than
those mentioned in the order itself - The
impugned order cannot be supplemented
for its reasons by an affidavit - Held
further, a KYC Form, submitted by a
customer, while opening a bank account,
cannot be the basis of finally determining
his rights or visiting him with adverse civil
consequences in a matter as profound as
public employment -No inference can be
drawn about the petitioner's qualification
based on the KYC Form. (Para 11, 13 and
16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner on 29.01.2020 to appear before
them virtually to explain himself. That is
not how an inquiry into charges, serious in nature
and likely to lead to the imposition of a major
penalty, is held. These facts and the manner in
which the inquiry has been held, leads this Court
to the irresistible conclusion that the inquiry
proceedings are vitiated on account of a serious
procedural lapse prejudicing the petitioner.

25. In the considered opinion of this Court,
therefore, this is a case, where the impugned order
deserves to be quashed with liberty to the
respondents, if they so chose, to proceed afresh
against the petitioner from the stage of the chargesheet, holding inquiry de novo in accordance with
law.

26. In the result, this petition succeeds and is
allowed in part. The impugned order dated
07.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director,
U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow is
hereby quashed. The respondents shall be at
liberty, if they so elect, to proceed afresh with the
inquiry in accordance with law, from the stage of
issue of the charge-sheet, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment.

27. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 928
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 19796 of 2023

Mushran ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeet Kumar Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jainendra Kumar Mishra

A. Service Law - Appointment - Post of
Sweeper
-
Qualification
-
Maximum
matriculation was required - Petitioner
claimed himself as Class VIII passed
candidate, however, he was declared
illegible on the basis that in his KYC Form,
qualification of Graduate was mentioned -
Validity challenged - KYC Form, how far
bear significance for public employment -
Plea of inaccuracy in date of birth was also
raised in counter affidavit - Permissibility
- Held, it is a well settled principle of law
that an order under challenge before the
Court cannot be asked to be sustained by
a respondent on the grounds other than
those mentioned in the order itself - The
impugned order cannot be supplemented
for its reasons by an affidavit - Held
further, a KYC Form, submitted by a
customer, while opening a bank account,
cannot be the basis of finally determining
his rights or visiting him with adverse civil
consequences in a matter as profound as
public employment -No inference can be
drawn about the petitioner's qualification
based on the KYC Form. (Para 11, 13 and
16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. Vs The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi & ors.;
(1978) 1 SCC 405

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. An advertisement was published by
the Punjab National Bank on 18.11.2021,
inviting applications for post of part-time
sweepers in their establishment. The
advertisement
was
published
in
newspapers. The petitioner applied for the
post of a part-time sweeper and submitted
his application form in the office of the
Chief Manager, Human Resource and
2 All. Mushran Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
929
Development,
Punjab
National
Bank,
Saharanpur.
After
verification,
the
petitioner was selected for the post of a
sweeper on 25.02.2022 and his name finds
mention at Sr. No.5 in the select-list of
candidates under the category of O.B.C.
The Chief Manager of the Punjab Nation
Bank last mentioned, respondent No.2, sent
a letter for verification of the petitioner's
documents on 30.03.2022. This letter
required the petitioner to appear in the
office of respondent No.2 on 06.04.2022 at
about 10:30 in the morning hours. The
petitioner
appeared
before
the
said
respondent
on
06.04.2022
for
the
verification of his documents. After all
necessary verification was done, the
respondent Bank issued appointment letters
to other candidates, but not the petitioner.

2. The petitioner's case is that he had
opened a bank account with another branch
of the respondent Bank, where his date of
birth mentioned is 20.05.1993. It was
mentioned in his Aadhaar Card as well.
The petitioner states that he had sought
correction of his date of birth in the
Aadhaar Card and PAN Card before
making his application for employment
with the Bank. The petitioner's case is that
his date of birth, in fact, is 20.09.1994; not
20.05.1993. In this connection, he has
drawn the attention of this Court to his
transfer
certificate
issued
by
the
Headmaster, New Janta Public Junior High
School, Village Nasarullapur, Deoband,
Saharanpur. This document relates to the
year 2008 when the petitioner passed his
Class-VIII examination from the aforesaid
institution. The certificate is countersigned
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Saharanpur.

3. The petitioner, faced with inaction
by the respondent Bank in issuing his
appointment letter, approached this Court
by means of Writ-A No.9832 of 2023,
seeking a direction to the Bank to consider
his case for appointment. This Court after
noticing
the
discrepancy
about
the
petitioner's date of birth in the Aadhaar
Card and steps taken for its rectification,
directed the respondent Bank to re-verify
the entire documents relating to the
petitioner and communicate the result to
him. The last mentioned order was passed
by this Court in Writ-A No.9832 of 2023
on 31.05.2023. A copy of the said order,
along with all necessary documents,
including his transfer certificate, was
submitted by the petitioner in the office of
respondent Bank on 17.06.2023. After a
long lapse of time on 09.10.2023, the
respondent
Bank
passed
the
order
impugned of that date saying that his
documents had been subjected to reverification and it was observed that the
petitioner had opened a current account in
the name of M/s. Deepak Electronics,
where his qualification mentioned in the
KYC Form was 'graduate'. Since the
maximum qualification for the post of a
sweeper indicated in the advertisement was
Class-X, the petitioner was ineligible for
appointment as a part-time sweeper.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 09.10.2023, this writ petition
has been instituted by the petitioner.

5. This Court vide order dated
29.11.2023 called upon the Chief Manager,
Human Resource and Development, Punjab
National Bank, Saharanpur, the respondent,
who had made the said order, to file his
own affidavit clearly stating if he asserts
for a fact on oath that the petitioner is a
graduate. This Court had indicated that the
petitioner says that he is not a graduate, but
had passed his Class-VIII examination. The
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chief Manager was also cautioned that in
case the petitioner was not indeed a
graduate, necessary action may be initiated
against him, because the stand taken in the
order impugned was prima facie directed at
frustrating this Court's earlier orders dated
31.05.2023 passed in Writ-A No.9832 of
2023, requiring a verification of the
petitioner's documents vis-a-vis her age.

6. An affidavit has been filed by the
respondent Bank, substantially answering
the petitioner's case. It is an affidavit filed
by Sanjay Khanna, Chief Manager, Human
Resource and Development Department,
Circle Office, Saharanpur. All that is said
there, for the basis of passing the impugned
order, is that the petitioner, in his KYC
Form submitted to the Bank before the G.T.
Road, Deoband Branch, had shown himself
to be a graduate way back on 18.09.2021. It
is also said in Paragraph No.4 of the
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
Bank that the account opening form moved
in the name of M/s. Deepak Electronics
clearly shows the petitioner's date of birth
as 20.05.1993, which was verified by his
own affidavit dated 18.09.2019. It is
asserted that at the time of applying for the
part-time sweeper's post, the petitioner had
mentioned his date of birth as 20.09.1994, a
fact evident to the respondents from a
perusal of documents filed along with the
KYC Form relating to the bank account
under reference. In Paragraph No.5 of the
affidavit, there is a rather scandalous and
contumacious piece of pleading, where it is
asserted:

"5. That it is relevant to mention
here that the petitioner previously filed a
writ A No. 9832 of 2023 before this
Hon'ble court on the basis of false and
concocted documents, which was disposed
of vide order dated 31.05.2023 with
direction that the respondent bank to reverify the documents' provided by the
petitioner within 2 months, in compliance
of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court
vide order dated 31.05.2023; the deponent
further examine the correctness of the
documents provided by the petitioner along
with the copy of the order dated 31.05.2023
passed by this Hon'ble court in writ A
No.9832 of 2023 and at the time of perusal
of the documents relates to petitioner, the
deponent found that the records available
before the bank, which was previously
submitted by the petitioner at the time of
opening the account in the name of M/s
Deepak Electronics, in the KYC form the
petitioner clearly mentioned that he is
Graduate; on that basis, the deponent
passed order on 09.10.2023 in compliance
of the previous order passed by this Hon'ble
court; on the basis of records available
before the bank. (emphasis by Court)

7. Again, in Paragraph No.6 of the
affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, it is
averred:

"6. That on the basis of the
declaration upon the KYC form submitted
by the petitioner before the bank on
18.09.2019 which was also verified by his
affidavit, it is clearly shows that the
petitioner is a graduate, therefore on that
basis the deponent passed the Impugned
order, on the basis of facts submitted by the
petitioner on 18.09.2019 before the bank;
therefore it is shows that the deponent
passed the order on the basis of facts and
documents submitted by the petitioner in
previously before the bank, there was no
any malafide intention of the deponent, the
petitioner himself submitted the deferent
documents for seeks illegal appointment
before the bank which is not permissible in
the eye of the law; if the petitioner
2 All. Mushran Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
931
permitted then the respondent bank filed
the details counter affidavit."

8. Heard Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Mishra,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Jainenendra
Kumar
Mishra,
learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Bank.

9. Before adverting to the merits of the
case, this Court cannot ignore the opening
part of the pleadings in Paragraph No.5 of
the
personal
affidavit
filed
by
the
respondent Bank, where it is said in a very
nonchalant
and
almost
contumacious
fashion that the petitioner previously filed
Writ-A No.9832 of 2023 before this Court
on the basis of false and concocted
documents, which was disposed of vide our
order dated 31.05.2023, directing the
respondent
Bank
to
re-verify
the
petitioner's documents within two months.
It is no business of any Manager of the
Bank to speak small of our proceedings. It
is not open to a litigant to say, particularly,
a State litigant, that some orders of ours
was passed on the basis of false and
concocted documents, unless he seeks
vacation of that order or its recall on that
ground and that is an issue to be
determined by this Court. Here, the
assertion has been made in an affidavit
filed in a subsequent petition, that is to say,
the
present
writ
petition,
regarding
proceedings of this Court that have already
concluded in the order dated 31.05.2023,
which
the
respondent
Bank
never
challenged on ground that it was obtained
by
presenting
false
and
concocted
documents to this Court. The assertion in
Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit to the
above effect has been made to denigrate
our proceedings. This fact was pointed out
by this Court to the learned Counsel for the
respondent Bank, but he did not seek time
to file a better affidavit or explain the
respondent Bank's position in this regard.
We, accordingly, hold that the first five
lines of Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit
dated 01.12.2023 filed by Sanjay Khanna,
Chief Manager, Human Resource and
Development, Saharanpur, are scandalous
pleading, which ought to be struck off the
record. Therefore, the following part of
Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit dated
01.12.2023 filed by Sanjay Khanna, shall
stand struck off as scandalous pleading:

"That it is relevant to mention
here that the petitioner previously filed a
writ A No. 9832 of 2023 before this
Hon'ble court on the basis of false and
concocted
documents,
which
was
disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2023
with direction that the respondent bank
to re-verify the documents' provided by
the petitioner within 2 months."

10. Sanjay Khanna, Chief Manager,
Human Resource and Development,
Circle
Office,
Saharanpur
is
admonished with the remark that he
shall be careful in future in wording his
pleadings filed in Court.

11. Turning to the merits of the matter,
this Court is of opinion that so far as the
issue of date of birth is concerned, the same
does not arise in this case at all. The reason
is that the impugned order has not been
passed on the ground of any inaccuracy in
the date of birth mentioned by the
petitioner in his application form seeking
employment. The petitioner's candidature
has been rejected by the impugned order on
the ground of his qualifications being
above eligibility, that is to say, a
matriculate. It is a well settled principle of
law that an order under challenge before
the Court cannot be asked to be sustained
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by a respondent on grounds other than
those mentioned in the order itself.

12. In this connection, reference may
be made to the decision in Mohinder
Singh Gill and another v. The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi and
others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, where their
Lordships of the Constitution Bench stated
the principle thus:

"8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons
so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
brought out. We may here draw attention to
the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v.
Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16] :
 "Public orders, publicly made, in
exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was
in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities
are meant to have public effect and are
intended to affect the actings and conduct
of those to whom they are addressed and
must
be
construed
objectively
with
reference to the language used in the order
itself."

Orders are not like old wine
becoming better as they grow older."

13. In short, the principle is that the
impugned order cannot be supplemented
for its reasons by an affidavit. This is what
precisely the respondent Bank seeks to do
by bringing in the issue of some
discrepancy in the petitioner's date of birth,
whereas that is not the ground at all, on
which the impugned order is founded. The
impugned order discards the petitioner's
candidature solely on the ground that in
some commercial transaction with the
Bank, where the petitioner had opened a
bank account for his firm, M/s. Deepak
Electronics,
he
had
mentioned
his
qualifications as graduate in the KYC
Form. The KYC Form has been annexed to
the affidavit filed by the respondent Bank
at Page No.23. The entry in the relevant
column is ex facie suspicious because the
box, that was ticked for the petitioner's
qualification, is the one that mentions him
as an undergraduate. This tick mark has
been cross-marked with a line, as if to opt
out of it and the next box, which mentions
the qualification 'graduate' has been tick
marked. This ex facie makes the matter
suspicious. But, this Court does not wish to
enter into that issue.

14. In our earlier order, the Court had
ordered the respondent Bank vide order
dated
31.05.2023
passed
in
Writ-A
No.9832 of 2023 to re-verify the entire
documents pertaining to the petitioner
appended with the application form. Now,
apparently, the purpose of all that exercise
was to find if the petitioner is indeed a
graduate or he is just a matriculate; or not
even that. If the petitioner is a matriculate
or holds a lower qualification, he would be
eligible. The petitioner along with a copy
of this Court's order has produced his
transfer certificate or school leaving
certificate from the New Janta Public
Junior High School, Village Nasarullapur,
Deoband, Saharanpur, signed by the
Headmaster
of
the
school.
It
is
countersigned
by
the
District
Basic
2 All. Mushran Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
933
Education Officer. It shows the petitioner
to have passed his Class-VIII and his date
of birth as 20.09.1994. The petitioner
passed out of the New Janta Public Junior
High
School,
Village
Nasarullapur,
Deoband, Saharanpur on 20.05.2008. The
certificate that the petitioner has relied on
has been issued on 27.11.2021 and
countersigned
by
the
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Saharanpur
on
29.11.2021. A xerox copy of the certificate,
that is on record, shows these facts also
indicate that the certificate is a part of the
book maintained by the School, bearing Sr.
No.26. This is the most authentic document
about the petitioner's qualifications, unless
the petitioner holds a higher qualification.

15. The first inquiry, the Bank ought
to have undertaken, was to verify the
genuineness of the petitioner's school
leaving/ transfer certificate, which is
countersigned
by
the
District
Basic
Education Office, Saharanpur. But, nothing
of the kind was done. It is the duty of the
Bank to verify the genuineness of the
school
leaving/
transfer
certificate
produced by the petitioner before the
respondent Bank, contacting the school and
the District Basic Education Officer both
for the purpose. If still, the respondent
Bank believe that the petitioner holds a
higher qualification and is a graduate, it is
open to them to inquire about the fact. If
they find any evidence aliunde to indicate
that the petitioner is indeed a graduate or
holds a qualification above a matriculate,
they would be perfectly within their rights
to reject the petitioner's candidature.
However, it is not open to the respondent
Bank to opine that the petitioner is a
graduate by relying upon an entry made in
the KYC Form filled up by the petitioner
while opening a bank account with them.
For one, the document, as noticed by this
Court regarding educational qualifications
of the petitioner, betrays suspicious scoring
out of one entry and the making of another.

16. Quite apart, a KYC Form
submitted by a customer of the bank while
opening a bank account, cannot be the basis
of finally determining his rights or visiting
him with adverse civil consequences in a
matter as profound as public employment.
In the nature of things, a form like a KYC,
much as it ought not be done, is filled up
with a kind of casualness about it. A
qualification, even if incorrectly tick
marked in the KYC Form, cannot be held
as a binding admission against the
subscriber or the customer in an unrelated
matter like his eligibility for employment.
No inference can be drawn about the
petitioner's qualification based on the KYC
Form. After all, a person's qualification is
not a matter of admission. It is to be proved
by evidence aliunde. This requires the
educational testimonials to be examined or
inquiries made to find out what are the real
qualifications that a candidate holds.

17. It is not the case of the respondent
Bank that while filling up the application
form seeking employment for the post of a
part-time sweeper, the petitioner has
indicated himself to be a graduate.
Clearly, he must not have done so, else
he would have been eliminated much
earlier. Now, to rely on a KYC Form
submitted along with a bank opening
application form in order to hold the
petitioner
disqualified
for
public
employment by the Bank is a perverse
approach to the matter, which this Court
cannot countenance. The impugned
order, in the considered opinion of this
Court, has been passed on irrelevant
considerations, relied on extraneous
materials and is clearly perverse.
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. In the circumstances, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 09.10.2023 passed
by the Chief Manager, Human Resource
and
Development,
Circle
Office,
Saharanpur
is
hereby
quashed.
A
mandamus is issued to the Chief Manager,
Human Resource and Development, Circle
Office, Saharanpur to re-determine the
petitioner's entitlement to be appointed a
part-time sweeper on the basis of select-list
dated 25.02.2022, and appoint him if found
to
be
the
holder
of
educational
qualifications not above a matriculate. This
order shall be carried out by the respondent
Bank within a month of its receipt.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 934
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ - A No. 21742 of 2023

Sudeep Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vimal Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Financial position of the
family - Relevance - Father was died in
1998 and application for compassionate
appointment was made in 1999 - Earlier,
petitioner's case was considered four
times during 2001-2002, but due to
constraints of inadequate vacancies, the
petitioner could not be appointed -
Entitlement - Tribunal rejected the claim
petition - 25 years was elapsed during the
course - Effect - Held, compassionate
appointment is given only for immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the
family by the reason of the death of sole
bread earner - More than 25 years have
elapsed. At this juncture, consideration of
the petitioner's case under compassionate
ground would not be just and reasonable
- Sushma Gosain's case relied upon. (Para
9 and 10)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Sushma Gosain Vs U.O.I.; (1989) SCC 468

2. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har.; (1994) 4
SCC 138

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J.
&
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri
Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.

2. The writ petition has been filed
questioning the order dated 23.08.2023
passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, in
Original Application No.330/01292 of
2019 Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of
India
and
orders
dated
20.06.2002,
01.07.2002, 30.09.2003 and 10.09.2019
passed
by
respondent
no.3
and
consequential directions passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. Facts of the case is that the father
of the petitioner who was a permanent
vehicle mechanic in 508 Army Base