# CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR v. ANIT KUMAR DAS

- **Citation:** [2020] 9 S.C.R. 925
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-11-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chief-manager-punjab-national-bank-anr-v-anit-kumar-das-34603
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Service Law:
Appointment/ Selection - To the post of Peon in Bank -
Entitlement - Eligibility criteria for the post as per the circulars
issued by the Bank was 12th class pass - It was specifically mentioned
in the advertisement that the candidate should not be graduate -
Respondent-candidate mentioned his qualification as 12th pass -
Appointment letter issued - During scrutiny it was found by Bank
that the candidate was graduate and hence not eligible for the post
- Candidature cancelled - Writ Petition - Single Judge of High
Court directed the Bank to allow the candidate to discharge his
duties as peon as per the appointment order - In writ appeal, Division
Bench of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge - Appeal
to Supreme Court - Held: A conscious decision was taken by Bank
providing eligibility criteria/ educational qualification - It is for
the employer to determine the relevance and suitability of the
qualification for any post - Courts are not fit instruments to assess
the expediency/ advisability/ utility of such prescription of
qualifications - The candidate having not challenged the eligibility
criteria/ educational qualification in the advertisement and having
participated in the recruitment process, it is not open for him to
contend that higher qualification cannot be a disqualification -
The candidate cannot claim right to appointment having suppressed
the material information and/ or giving false information - Impugned
order is therefore set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appointments to the post of subordinate staff/
Peons were required to be made strictly in accordance with the
eligibility criteria mentioned in the Circular letter No. 25 of 2008
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 925
925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
dated 06.11.2008 and the selection of the Peons was required to
be made as per Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.3.2016.
[Para 5.1][934-C-D]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
expediency or advisability or utility of su

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.
v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS
(Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 03, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment/ Selection - To the post of Peon in Bank -
Entitlement - Eligibility criteria for the post as per the circulars
issued by the Bank was 12th class pass - It was specifically mentioned
in the advertisement that the candidate should not be graduate -
Respondent-candidate mentioned his qualification as 12th pass -
Appointment letter issued - During scrutiny it was found by Bank
that the candidate was graduate and hence not eligible for the post
- Candidature cancelled - Writ Petition - Single Judge of High
Court directed the Bank to allow the candidate to discharge his
duties as peon as per the appointment order - In writ appeal, Division
Bench of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge - Appeal
to Supreme Court - Held: A conscious decision was taken by Bank
providing eligibility criteria/ educational qualification - It is for
the employer to determine the relevance and suitability of the
qualification for any post - Courts are not fit instruments to assess
the expediency/ advisability/ utility of such prescription of
qualifications - The candidate having not challenged the eligibility
criteria/ educational qualification in the advertisement and having
participated in the recruitment process, it is not open for him to
contend that higher qualification cannot be a disqualification -
The candidate cannot claim right to appointment having suppressed
the material information and/ or giving false information - Impugned
order is therefore set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appointments to the post of subordinate staff/
Peons were required to be made strictly in accordance with the
eligibility criteria mentioned in the Circular letter No. 25 of 2008
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 925
925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
dated 06.11.2008 and the selection of the Peons was required to
be made as per Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.3.2016.
[Para 5.1][934-C-D]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
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
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
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]
Case Law Reference
(2017) 8 SCC 608
referred to
Para 3.4
(1990) 1 SCC 288
relied on
Para 7
[2003] 2 SCR 662
relied on
Para 7.1
[2018] 14 SCR 1082
relied on
Para 7.2
(2010) 15 SCC 596
referred to
Para 7.2
[2014] 14 SCR 819
referred to
Para 7.2
[2003] 2 SCR 361
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3602
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2019.
Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, Abhinav Agrawal,
Rajesh Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2019, by which the
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by
the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order dated
13.03.2019 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in W.P.
(C) No. 19261 of 2016, by which the learned single Judge allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and directed the
appellant Bank to allow the respondent herein - original writ petitioner
to discharge his duties as a Peon as per the appointment order dated
03.10.2016, the employer - Punjab National Bank has preferred the
present appeal.
2. Applications were invited by the appellant Bank for the post of
Peon by publishing an advertisement in the local newspaper. The eligibility
criteria mentioned in the said advertisement was that a candidate should
have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading/writing
knowledge of English. It specifically provided that a candidate should
not be a Graduate as on 01.01.2016. A candidate was also required to
submit the bio-data as per the prescribed format. The respondent herein,
though a Graduate, applied for the said post. However, neither in the
application nor in the bio-data, he disclosed that he was a graduate. At
this stage, it required to be noted that the eligibility criteria and the
educational qualification prescribed above was as per the Circular Letter
No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008 issued by the Human Resources
Development Division (for short "HRD Division") of the Bank specifying
the guidelines for recruitment of staff in subordinate cadre in the bank
and prescribing the eligibility criteria. That on the basis of the information
provided by the applicants in their applications, a list of eligible candidates
was prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in 10th Class and 12th
Class. As per Circular dated 04.03.2016 issued by the HRD Division of
the Bank, the selection of the peons was required to be made on the
basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10th
standard and 12th standard. That so far as the respondent herein - original
writ petitioner is concerned, based on the information provided by him in
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
his application, his name appeared in the selected candidates of Balsar
District. That an order of appointment was issued. It appears that while
scrutiny of the documents was going on, the appellant Bank came to
know about a graduate certificate showing that the respondent - original
writ petitioner was a graduate since 2014. Thus, it was noticed and
found that he was not eligible as per the advertisement and the Circulars
and that the respondent deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed
the fact that he was a graduate. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled
and he was not allowed to join the bank in subordinate cadre. That,
thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition before the High Court,
being Writ Petition (C) No. 19261 of 2016, for an appropriate order to
allow him to discharge his duties as Peon as per the appointment order
dated 03.10.2016 and to further direct that his appointment may not be
cancelled on the ground that he has possessed higher qualification. That
the said petition was opposed by the bank by filing a detailed affidavitin-reply. It was specifically pointed out that the eligibility criteria and the
educational qualification was fixed as per the Circular letter No. 25 of
2008 dated 06.11.2008 issued by the HRD Division of the Bank. It was
also pointed out that on 04.03.2016 the HRD Division issued another
Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 pursuant to the decision of the Bank's
Board in their meeting dated 29.02.2016, by which it was decided that
the selection of the Peons will be made on the basis of the percentage of
marks obtained by the candidates in 10th standard and 12th standard. It
was also submitted that the respondent deliberately, wilfully and
intentionally suppressed the material fact that he was a graduate. It was
pointed out that 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. Despite the above, the learned single Judge of the High Court
allowed the said writ petition solely relying upon the decision of the
Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 69034 of 2019 [Pankaj
Kumar Dubey v. Punjab National Bank], in which the Allahabad High
Court referring to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1010 of 2000 dated 11.02.2000 [Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani
v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur) held that a candidate cannot
be denied the appointment solely on the ground that he is possessing a
higher qualification. The learned single Judge directed the bank to allow
the respondent herein to discharge his duties as a Peon as per the
appointment order dated 03.10.2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned single Judge allowing the aforesaid writ petition
and directing the bank to allow the respondent -original writ petitioner to
discharge his duties as a Peon as per the appointment order dated
03.10.2016, the appellant Bank preferred the writ appeal before the
Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order,
which as such is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, the Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal and has not interfered
with the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence,
the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
more particularly, when in the advertisement it was specifically mentioned
that a candidate should not be a graduate as on 01.01.2016 and that it
specifically provided that a candidate should have passed 12th class or
its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English and the
educational qualification/eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement
was as per Circulars dated 06.11.2008 and 04.03.2016 issued by the
HRD Division of the Bank and admittedly the respondent - original writ
petitioner was a graduate as on 01.01.2016 and therefore not eligible
even to apply, both, the learned single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court have materially erred in directing the appellant
Bank to allow the original writ petitioner to perform his duties as a Peon
pursuant to the appointment order dated 03.10.2016.
3.1 It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant Bank that in
the present case the original writ petitioner did not challenge the eligibility
criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. He
never challenged the circular prescribing the educational qualification/
eligibility criteria. It is submitted that once having not challenged the
eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement,
and thereafter having participated in the recruitment process, it is not
open for him to contend that he cannot be denied appointment on the
ground of having higher qualification.
3.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant Bank that the High Court has clearly erred in
relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court, in which the
decision of this Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) was relied
upon. It is submitted that in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
(supra) this Court has specifically stated in Para 21 that the said decision
is on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying
down a rule of universal application.
3.3 It is submitted that even otherwise it is required to be noted
that the said Circulars dated 06.11.2008 and 04.03.2016 were issued
prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification on the basis of
the decision approved by the Board of the Bank and considering the
nature of the post - Peon/subordinate cadre and a conscious decision
was taken by the bank that a candidate having the qualification of
graduation shall not be eligible and the candidate who passed in 12th
standard or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English
shall only be eligible. It is submitted therefore apart from the fact that
the original writ petitioner did not challenge the eligibility criteria/
educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement, once a conscious
decision was taken by the employer - bank prescribing a specific
qualification, thereafter unless it is found to be most arbitrary, the same
cannot be the subject-matter of a judicial review. Reliance is placed on
the decisions of this Court in the cases of J. Rangaswamy v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 1 SCC 288, Yogesh Kumar
v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548 and a recent decision
of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad
(2019) 2 SCC 404.
3.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant Bank that even otherwise on the ground that the
respondent - original writ petitioner deliberately and willfully suppressed
the material fact of having been graduate and did not disclose the same
even in the bio-data which was required to be submitted in the prescribed
form, the High Court has materially erred in directing the appellant Bank
to allow the respondent - original writ petitioner to perform his duties as
a Peon as per the appointment order dated 03.10.2016 which, as such,
was already cancelled. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court
in the cases of State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar (2017) 8 SCC 608
and in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan
Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437. It is submitted that 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. It is submitted that based on the biodata and the application submitted by him, in which he gave the particulars
of having passed 12th standard, his candidature was accepted. It is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
submitted that before he was permitted to resume/join the duty, the bank
came to know that he was a graduate since 2014 and therefore was not
eligible at all and thereafter his candidature was cancelled and he was
not allowed to join the duty. It is submitted that therefore the High Court
has erred in directing the appellant bank to allow the respondent - original
writ petitioner to discharge his duties as Peon as per the appointment
order dated 03.10.2016.
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent - original writ petitioner. It is
vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent - original writ petitioner
that as rightly held by the High Court relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) and the decision
of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Dubey
(supra), the higher qualification cannot be a disqualification. It is submitted
that in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra), this Court has
deprecated the criteria of maximum qualification for the post of Peon.
It is submitted that therefore, as such, the High Court has not committed
any error in directing the appellant Bank to permit the respondent -
original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon pursuant to the
appointment order dated 03.10.2016. It is submitted that the appointment
of respondent - original writ petitioner was cancelled mainly/solely on
the ground that he was having a higher qualification. It is submitted that
in the present case the eligibility criteria/educational qualification
mentioned in the advertisement was 12th standard and cannot be said to
be a maximum educational qualification and therefore merely because
the respondent-original writ petitioner was having a higher qualification
than 12th standard, his candidature could not have been cancelled.
4.1 Making the above submission it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. The appellant Bank invited the applications
for the post Peon by giving an advertisement in the local newspaper. 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.
Thus, as per the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement, a
candidate who was having qualification of graduate was not eligible even
to apply. From the counter filed on behalf of the Bank before the High
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Court, it appears that the educational qualification mentioned in the
advertisement was as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008
issued by the HRD Division of the bank. The relevant portion of the
Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008 reads as under:
"Age Minimum - 18 years
Maximum - 24 years with applicable relaxations.
Education: Pass in 12th Standard or its equivalent with basic
reading/writing knowledge of English (Graduates are not eligible)"
5.1 It appears that thereafter on 04.03.2016 the HRD Division of
the Bank issued another Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016 indicating therein
that the process of conducting interviews for recruitment of posts in
subordinate cadre has since been discontinued, the Bank's Board in its
meeting 29.02.2016 has approved an alternative mechanism in lieu of
interviews for recruitment of Peons in subordinate cadre selection on
the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10th
standard and 12th standard. Therefore, the appointments to the post of
subordinate staff/Peons were required to be made strictly in accordance
with the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Circular letter No. 25 of 2008
dated 06.11.2008 and the selection of the Peons was required to be
made as per Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.3.2016.
5.2 It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said advertisement,
respondent herein - original writ petitioner applied for the post of Peon.
However, in the application/bio-data, he did not disclose that he is a
graduate from 2014. He only mentioned his qualification as 12th pass.
On the basis of the information provided by him in his application, his
application was entertained and he was selected on the basis of the
marks obtained in 10th class and 12th class. Therefore, the respondent -
original writ petitioner deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed
the fact that he was a graduate. 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. That thereafter and before the original writ
petitioner was permitted to resume his duty pursuant to the appointment
order dated 03.10.2016, the bank came to know that he was a graduate.
That thereafter when scrutiny of the document was going on, the original
writ petitioner produced the graduate certification showing that he was
a graduate since 2014, the bank found that he was not eligible as he did
not fulfill the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, and that he
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
suppressed the material fact that he was a graduate, his candidature
came to be cancelled and he was not allowed to join the bank in the
subordinate cadre/Peon.
5.3 The learned Single Judge of the High Court by the judgment
and order allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and
directed the appellant Bank to allow the original writ petitioner to discharge
his duties as a Peon as per appointment order dated 03.10.2016 on the
ground that as held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj
Kumar Dubey (supra), in which the decision of this Court in the case of
Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) was relied upon, the higher
qualification cannot be the qualification for the post of Peon. Decision of
the learned Single Judge has been continuing by the Division Bench by
impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order. Therefore, the short
question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case and despite the fact that there was
suppression of the material fact by the respondent - original writ petitioner
in not disclosing in the application/bio-data that he was a graduate, the
High Court is justified in directing the appellant Bank to allow the
respondent - original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon as
per appointment order dated 03.10.2016 which, as such, was cancelled?
6. It is required to be noted that the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification mentioned in the advertisement inviting the applications was
as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008, the relevant
portion of which is reproduced hereinabove. As stated in the counter to
the writ petition, 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. The said decision
was taken consciously looking to the nature of the post. At this stage, it
is required to be noted that 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.
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
7. Even otherwise, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification that a graduate shall not be eligible to apply was a conscious
decision taken by the Bank and the same was as per the Circular letter
No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008. In the case of J. Rangaswamy (supra),
it is observed and held by this Court that it is not for the court to consider
the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts.
7.1 In the case of Yogesh Kumar (supra), it is observed and held
by this Court that 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.
7.2 In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad
Rather (supra), this Court has distinguished another decision of this Court
in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
15 SCC 596 taking the view that in a case where lower qualification is
prescribed, if a person has acquired higher qualifications, such qualification
can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post. In the said decision, this Court also
took note of another decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab
v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170, in which case, this Court on facts distinguished
the decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra). While distinguishing the
decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra), it is observed in paras 25 and
26 as under:
"25. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] has been considered in a judgment of two learned
Judges in State of Punjab v. Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita,
(2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . In that case,
applications were invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under
the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included
a Matric with a two years' course in JBT training and knowledge
of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent.
This Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed
qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a
"higher qualification". Adverting to the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] , this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii)
in that case clearly stipulated that the possession of a higher
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification
prescribed for the post. In the absence of such a stipulation, it
was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced: (Anita
case [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1
SCC (L&S) 329] , SCC p. 177, para 15)
"15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid
observations, that since the private respondents possess higher
qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be
treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts
of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the
aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private
respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into
consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid
observations inJyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] , permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the
decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents,
is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6)
'6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these
Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by
executive orders or Standing Orders of Government as
equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special
Rules [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been
emphasised in original.] and such of those higher
qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the
lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be
sufficient for the post.'
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of
higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the
lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the
present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory
provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher
qualifications."
(emphasis supplied)
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation
which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision
in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1
SCC (L&S) 329]. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent
such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that
a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of
another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications
for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition
of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review
to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly,
equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be
determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a
particular qualification should or should not be regarded as
equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to
determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the
holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition
of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present
case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this
view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-102017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the
judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC
OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to
the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed
qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz
Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench."
That thereafter it is observed in para 27 as under:
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State,
as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features
including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification
and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the
acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the
authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative
decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take
into account social perspectives that require the creation of job
opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially
matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why
the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664]
must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under
which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the
acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient
for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned.
7.3 Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, 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 as observed
hereinabove, 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.
8. Even on the ground that respondent - original writ petitioner
deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
graduate, the High Court has erred in directing the appellant Bank to
allow the respondent - original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as
a Peon. In the application/bio-data, the respondent-original writ petitioner
did not mention that he was a graduate. Very cleverly he suppressed the
material fact and declared his qualification as H.S.C., whereas as a
matter of fact, he was holding a degree in the Bachelor in Arts. 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. That thereafter
when scrutiny of the documents was going on and when the respondent
- original writ petitioner produced a graduation certificate, at that time,
the bank came to know that he was a graduate and therefore not eligible
and therefore the bank rightly cancelled his candidature and he was not
allowed to join the bank in the subordinate cadre. Therefore, on the
aforesaid ground alone, 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. 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. As held by this Court in the case of Ram Ratan Yadav
(supra), suppression of material information and making a false statement
has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in
relation to his continuance in service. 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.
9. On reading the judgment and order passed by the learned single
Judge it appears that the learned single Judge has not at all considered
the aforesaid aspect of suppression of material fact and information.
So far as the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court, as such it is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, without even
stating any facts.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
10. In view of the above and for the reasons state above, the
impugned order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned single
Judge of the High Court dated 13.03.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 19261 of
2016 directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent - original writ
petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon as per appointment order
dated 03.11.2016 is unsustainable and deserves to quashed and set aside
and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed.
However, considering the fact that the post in question was a subordinate
staff post/Peon, and despite the fact that because of the mischievous
act on the part of the original writ petitioner, one candidate could not get
the job, we refrain from imposing the cost and leave the matter there.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.
ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]