# Pankaj Pandey v. S.B.I. Central Recruitment and Promotion Deptt and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1429
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-01
- **Bench:** S.R. Alam, C.J. Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-pandey-v-s-b-i-central-recruitment-and-promotion-deptt-and-another-42070
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Cancellation
of
appointment
letterappellant was finally selected on post of
clerk-cum-cashier-appointing
authority
considering
decleration
column
of
application regarding pendency of Trails
of cases under Section 323, 504, 506,
498-A, and 3⁄4 D.P. Act-decided to
withdraw the offer letter-held-propersole domain of appointing authority-can
not be interfered by Court-selected
candidate-no feasible right to claim
appointment-Single
Judge
rightly
declined to interfere.

Held: Para 11

Otherwise also, it is within the domain of
the Appointing Authority/employer to
verify, before issuing the letter of
appointment,
the
antecedents
of
a
person to whom it is going to offer letter
of appointment. Therefore, in the facts of
the case, even if the appellant was
selected, since the respondents have
decided not to offer him appointment
because of his involvement in criminal
cases, we have no reason to differ with
the view taken by the learned Single
Judge. No other point has been urged
before us.
Case law discussed:
(1996) 11 SCC 605; (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734;
2011 (4) ESC 634; 2007 (5) ADJ 280

## Text

3 All] Pankaj Pandey V. S.B.I. Central Recruitment and Promotion Deptt and another
1429
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. ALAM, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2319 of 2011

Pankaj Pandey
...Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
S.B.I.
Central
Recruitment
and
Promotion Deptt and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.K. Pandey,
Sri H.L. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Cancellation
of
appointment
letterappellant was finally selected on post of
clerk-cum-cashier-appointing
authority
considering
decleration
column
of
application regarding pendency of Trails
of cases under Section 323, 504, 506,
498-A, and 3⁄4 D.P. Act-decided to
withdraw the offer letter-held-propersole domain of appointing authority-can
not be interfered by Court-selected
candidate-no feasible right to claim
appointment-Single
Judge
rightly
declined to interfere.

Held: Para 11

Otherwise also, it is within the domain of
the Appointing Authority/employer to
verify, before issuing the letter of
appointment,
the
antecedents
of
a
person to whom it is going to offer letter
of appointment. Therefore, in the facts of
the case, even if the appellant was
selected, since the respondents have
decided not to offer him appointment
because of his involvement in criminal
cases, we have no reason to differ with
the view taken by the learned Single
Judge. No other point has been urged
before us.
Case law discussed:
(1996) 11 SCC 605; (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734;
2011 (4) ESC 634; 2007 (5) ADJ 280

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.R. Alam, C.J. )

1. This intra-court appeal arises
from the judgment and order of the
learned
Single
Judge
dated
2nd
November, 2011 rendered in Civil Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.62473
of
2011,
dismissing the appellant's writ petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondents.

3. The short facts giving rise to the
present appeal, briefly stated, are that the
State Bank of India advertised few
vacancies
of
Clerk-cum-Cashier
for
selection and appointment. Pursuant to the
said advertisement, the appellant also
applied for the said post and appeared in
the written examination and was declared
successful hence called for interview,
which was to be held on 7th May, 2010.
However, in the declaration form, he
disclosed about the pendency of three
criminal cases against him, i.e. (1) Case
No......... of 2000 under Sections 323, 504
& 506 IPC, (2) Case No........ of 2007
under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3 of the D.P. Act, and (3)
Case No.........of 2008 under Sections 323,
504 & 506 IPC. The respondent Bank,
therefore,
keeping
in
view
his
involvement in the aforesaid criminal
cases involving moral turpitude, decided
not to appoint him and, therefore, vide
letter dated 23.09.2011, the offer made to
appoint him was withdrawn/cancelled.
The aggrieved appellant, therefore, filed
1430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
aforesaid writ petition for quashing of
aforesaid order dated 23.09.2011 and
further for a direction commanding the
respondents to appoint him as Clerk in
Gaurabadshahpur, Jaunpur Branch or any
other Branch of the State Bank of India of
the Zone and to pay salary as and when it
falls due.

4. The learned Single Judge was of
the view that it is not desirable to issue
letter of appointment to a person against
whom criminal cases are pending even if
he has cleared the written examination,
interview and has provisionally been
selected. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, following the judgment of the
Apex Court in Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs.
Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605,
dismissed the writ petition. The appellant,
therefore, preferred this appeal under the
Rules of the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently contended that the alleged
offences against the appellant, which are
pending trial and being of trivial nature,
the respondents are not justified in
withdrawing the offer of appointment to
the appellant. He placed reliance on the
judgments
of
the
Apex
Court
in
Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs.
Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
734 and Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors., 2011 (4) ESC 634.

6. We do not find any force in the
submission and the authorities cited has
no application in the facts of the present
case, as we are of the view that it is within
the sole domain of the Appointing
Authority/employer
to
verify
the
antecedents of a person before issuing
appointment
letter.
Admittedly,
the
appellant is facing criminal charges which
are pending trial. The respondents,
keeping in view his involvement in the
aforesaid
offences
involving
moral
turpitude, decided not to offer him
appointment.

7. In Commissioner of Police &
Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has
observed that the Court should condone
minor indiscretions made by young
people rather than to brand them as
criminals for the rest of their lives. In that
case, the selection of Sri Sandeep Kumar
(the respondent therein) was cancelled on
the ground that he had not disclosed in the
declaration form the pendency of criminal
case against him registered as F.I.R. No.
362 under Sections 325/34 IPC. The Apex
Court, observing that since it was a minor
offence, therefore, lenient view should
have been taken by the authorities,
quashed the order of cancellation of
selection. Similarly, in Ram Kumar
(supra), Ram Kumar was appointed as
Constable. However, subsequently, it was
found that he was involved in a criminal
case under Sections, 324, 323 and 504
IPC and, therefore, his appointment was
cancelled on the ground that he withheld
the information about his involvement in
the aforesaid criminal case. The Apex
Court, in view of the fact that before
applying for selection and appointment,
since Ram Kumar was already acquitted,
following the judgment in Commissioner
of Police & Ors. (supra), set aside the
order
cancelling
his
appointment.
Therefore,
in
the
aforesaid
cases,
whereupon reliance has been placed by
the counsel for the appellant, admittedly,
the selected candidates, at the time of
issuance of appointment letter, were not
facing any criminal charges nor any
criminal case was pending trial, whereas
3 All] Pankaj Pandey V. S.B.I. Central Recruitment and Promotion Deptt and another
1431
in the case in hand, it is not in dispute that
three criminal cases are pending against
the appellant and some of them involves
moral turpitude and, therefore, looking to
the past antecedents of the petitionerappellant, the Appointing Authority did
not consider it fit to issue appointment
letter to him.

8. More so, it is settled law that
mere
selection
does
not
confer
indefeasible right to claim appointment.
In in State of Haryana Vs. Subhash
Chander Marwaha & Ors., (1974) 1
SCR 165, the Apex Court held as under:

"... One fails to see how the
existence of vacancies gives a legal right
to a candidate to be selected for
appointment. The examination is for the
purpose of showing that a particular
candidate is eligible for consideration.
The selection for appointment comes
later. It is open then to the Government to
decide how many appointments shall be
made. The mere fact that a candidate's
name appears in the list will not entitle
him to a mandamus that he be
appointed."

9. In Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union
of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:-

"Even if vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates do not acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed. Ordinarily, the
notification merely amounts to an invitation
to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on their selection they do
not acquire any right to the post. Unless the
relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the
State is under no legal duty to fill up all or
any of the vacancies. However, it does not
mean that the State has the licence of acting
in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to
fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona
fide for appropriate reasons. And if the
vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative
merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can
be permitted."

10. A Division Bench of this Court in
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission,
Allahabad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &
Anr., 2007 (5) ADJ 280, took the similar
view and observed as under:-

"Moreover, even in the case of a select
list candidate, the law is well settled that
such a candidate has no indefeasible right to
claim appointment merely for the reason
that his name is included in the select list as
the State is under no legal duty to fill up all
or any of the vacancy and it can always be
left vacant or unfilled for a valid reason."

11. Otherwise also, it is within the
domain
of
the
Appointing
Authority/employer to verify, before issuing
the letter of appointment, the antecedents of
a person to whom it is going to offer letter
of appointment. Therefore, in the facts of
the case, even if the appellant was selected,
since the respondents have decided not to
offer him appointment because of his
involvement in criminal cases, we have no
reason to differ with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. No other point has
been urged before us.

12. The appeal, being without merit, is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
---------
1432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4479 of 2005
(U/S 482 Cr.P.C.)

Surya Nath & another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brij Nath Singh
Sri Umesh Vats

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482Quashing of criminal proceeding-offence
under
section
419,
420,409
IPCallegation of bribery of Rs. 3000/-charge
framed on 08.12.1997 during 8 years
prosecution failed to produce witnessspeedy investigation and Trail-integral
part of fundamental right to life and
liberty-applicant can not be thrown at
mercy
of
prosecution-fit
case
for
quashing criminal proceeding.

Held: Para 9 and 10

Therefore, the petitioner who is an
accused of embezzlement of a meager
amount of Rs. Three thousand relating to
the occurrence of the year 1982, can not
be kept waiting for the final decision of
the case according to the mercy of the
prosecution. His fundamental right to
have speedy trial of his case seems to
have violated by the State without any
proper reason, therefore, I find sufficient
merit in the petition.

Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions
of the Apex Court and the fact that the
prosecution
failed
to
examine
any
witness during the period of eight years
and the trial remained pending without
any progress and there does not appear
to be any justification for the delay, I
consider it proper in the interest of
justice to quash the proceedings of the
criminal case no. 2211 of 1993, State vs.
Surya Nath Yadav and another, under
sections 467, 468, 419, 420 and 409 IPC,
police station Kotwali Deoria, district
Deoria.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2008 SC 3077; AIR 2009 SC 1822

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J. )

1 . Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned AGA and
perused
the
progress
report
dated
10.5.2011 submitted by the C.J.M.
Deoria.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the criminal
case is of the year 1993 and since then
eighteen years have elapsed, even then the
trial is pending for want of prosecution
evidence. According to the progress
report, the trial remained pending for
several years for want of attendance of the
accused persons. However, the charges
were framed on 8.12.1997 and case
remained
pending
for
prosecution
evidence for several years and the
prosecution
failed
to
examine
any
witness. The trial is lying stayed from
2005 under orders of this Court.

3. A copy of the order sheet of the
concerned criminal case is on record,
perusal whereof reveals that several dates
had been fixed for prosecution evidence
but the prosecution failed to produce any
evidence during the period of eight years,
i.e. from the year 1997 to 2005.

4. It was the duty of the prosecution
to produce relevant evidence on the dates