Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Punjab National Bank against the judgment of the Orissa High Court, which had directed the bank to allow Anit Kumar Das to join as a Peon despite his suppression of graduation. The bank had advertised for the post of Peon with eligibility criteria requiring 12th pass and basic English knowledge, specifically stating that graduates as on 01.01.2016 were ineligible. The respondent, a graduate since 2014, applied without disclosing his graduation and was selected based on marks in 10th and 12th standards. During document scrutiny, the bank discovered his graduation and cancelled his candidature for suppression and ineligibility. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the single judge relying on Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani, holding that higher qualification cannot be a disqualification. The Division Bench dismissed the bank's appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the eligibility criteria were fixed by the bank's Board and were not arbitrary; the respondent did not challenge the criteria and participated in selection, so he cannot later challenge it. The Court emphasized that suppression of material facts justifies cancellation, and the decision in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani was not a universal rule. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's orders.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Eligibility Criteria - Employer's Prescribed Qualification - Judicial Review - The employer, Punjab National Bank, prescribed that candidates for the post of Peon must not be graduates as on 01.01.2016, as per Circulars dated 06.11.2008 and 04.03.2016. The respondent, a graduate since 2014, applied without disclosing his graduation and was selected. Upon discovery, his candidature was cancelled. The Supreme Court held that eligibility criteria fixed by the employer are not subject to judicial review unless found to be most arbitrary. The High Court erred in interfering with the bank's decision. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Suppression of Material Facts - Candidature Cancellation - The respondent deliberately suppressed the fact that he was a graduate in his application and biodata. The Supreme Court held that such suppression of material facts justifies cancellation of candidature, relying on State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar (2017) 8 SCC 608 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437. The bank would not have considered him had the truth been known. (Paras 9-10) C) Service Law - Higher Qualification - Disqualification - The Supreme Court clarified that the decision in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur (2000) does not lay down a rule of universal application and was based on its own facts. Where the employer consciously prescribes a maximum qualification, a candidate with higher qualification can be disqualified. The High Court's reliance on that decision was misplaced. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who suppresses his higher qualification and applies for a post for which graduates are ineligible can be denied appointment, and whether the High Court erred in directing the bank to allow him to join despite the suppression and violation of eligibility criteria.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 22.11.2019 and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 13.03.2019, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The bank's cancellation of the respondent's candidature was upheld.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria fixed by employer not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary
- Suppression of material facts justifies cancellation of candidature
- Higher qualification can be a disqualification if prescribed by employer
- Candidate cannot challenge eligibility criteria after participating in selection process
