CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.V. ANIT KUMAR DAS versus ANIT KUMAR DAS

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 03-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 pass

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.