AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein has approached this Court
for assailing the action of the respondent Bank of
Baroda in not providing appointment to the petitioner
on the post of Class IV employee despite being
selected in the questioned selection process. The
respondents herein issued an advertisement
(Annex.6) for two posts of Sweeper cum Peon; one
being of General Category at Galiyakot Branch and the
other being of Scheduled Tribe Category at the
Gandhwa Branch of the Bank. It was stipulated in the
advertisement that the applicant should have acquired
the 10th standard qualification but should not have
cleared 10+2 or equivalent examination. The
petitioner being a Scheduled Tribe candidate of Bheel
Caste submitted an application for recruitment on
31.10.2013 mentioning therein that he had cleared
10th standard examination and had appeared in the
12th standard examination. It is claimed by the
petitioner that the result of his 12th standard
examination was declared on 16.12.2013 and thus,
before that date, he was only secondary qualified. The
respondents subjected the petitioner to interview and
finding him suitable for the post, issued an
appointment order dated 13.1.2014 in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner underwent requisite
formalities of medical test, character verification etc.
and thereafter, approached the Branch Manager,
Gandhwa to join duty. But he was not permitted to
join on the post with the oral information that he had
obtained the degree of 12th standard and thus, was
not qualified for the post. Being aggrieved by the
action of the respondents in not allowing him to join
duty on the post of Sweeper cum Peon, despite being
regularly selected, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of the instant writ petition.
The respondents have filed reply to the writ
petition wherein, the fact regarding the petitioner
having applied for the post of Sweeper cum Peon in
the Scheduled Tribe category in the Gandhwa Branch
of the Bank is not disputed. It is mentioned in the
reply that the eligibility criterion of the candidates was
to be considered as on the date of the advertisement
i.e. 2.9.2013. It was clearly provided in the
advertisement itself that the said date, which is
treated to be a cut off date, the applicant should have
cleared 10th standard examination but should not have
passed 12th standard or equivalent examination. This
qualification/eligibility criterion was fixed as per the
government guidelines. The petitioner appeared for
interview on 31.10.2013 and on that date, he
informed that he had appeared in the 12 th standard
examination in the month of October 2013 and his
result is still awaited. Thus, the petitioner was treated
as not having cleared the 12 th standard examination.
However, when the petitioner came to join duty
pursuant to the appointment order dated 13.1.2014, it
was revealed that he had cleared the 12 th examination
on 16.12.2013 and thus, the petitioner was denied
permission to join duty and was served an
appointment cancellation order dated 6.2.2014 which
has been placed on record with the reply as
Annex.R/1. It is asserted in the reply that in the
appointment letter dated 13.1.2014, the petitioner
was clearly notified that in case he was found
ineligible at any stage, his appointment could be
cancelled. The respondents have defended their action
in not allowing the petitioner to join as being
overqualified for the post by virtue of clearing the 12 th
standard examination by the date of joining. The
respondents have filed an additional affidavit of the
Officer Incharge to the effect that while filling up the
application form, the petitioner concealed the fact of
his having appeared in the 12th standard examination
and thus, by making this misstatement in the form,
the petitioner becomes disentitled for appointment.
Shri Harshvardhan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner
was not overqualified on the date of submitting the
application form. He urged that the respondents have
themselves specified that the cut off date for
considering the eligibility criterion in the questioned
recruitment process was the date of issuance of the
advertisement i.e. 2.9.2013 on that day admittedly
the petitioner was not holding the qualification of 12 th
standard. The recruitment notification itself specifies
that the candidate concerned should be within the
prescribed eligibility qualification on the date of the
advertisement. Thus, date for considering the
eligibility criterion could not be shifted to the date of
issuance of the appointment order. He further
submitted that there was no requirement in the
application form to mention regarding the petitioner
having appeared in the 12th standard examination. On
this basis, Shri Harshvardhan Singh vehemently urged
that the action of the respondents in denying joining
permission to the petitioner and cancelling his
appointment vide order (Annex.R/1) dated 6.2.2014 is
arbitrary, perverse and bad in the eye of law and
should be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, Shri Vipul Dharnia appearing on
behalf of the respondents appearing on behalf of Shri
Ravi Bhansali Sr.Advocate vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by the petitioner''s counsel. He
relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent
Extraactions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr.
reported in (2006)13 SCC 619 and urged that as
the petitioner was over-qualified on the date of
issuance of the appointment order, he was rightly
denied joining permission and the respondents were
perfectly justified in cancelling his appointment.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the material available
on record.
The condition stipulated in the recruitment
notification whereby a cap was fixed on the
qualification of the aspirants cannot be questioned in
view of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of
Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd.''s case referred to
supra. Furthermore, the petitioner has not even
challenged the said condition while filing the instant
writ petition. Thus, all that is to be seen for deciding
the controversy is as to whether the eligibility of the
aspirant regarding educational qualification should be
assessed as on the date of issuance of the recruitment
advertisement or in context to the date of issuance of
the appointment order. The advertisement (Annex.6)
which was issued by per the respondents on 2.9.2013,
clearly stipulated that the eligibility criterion of the
aspirant as on the date of the issuance of the
advertisement should be "minimum 10th standard but
should not have passed 10+2 or equivalent
examination". The respondents have themselves
admitted in the reply that the eligibility criterion of
educational qualification was to be examined as on the
date of advertisement. The respondents at para no.6
of the reply have mentioned as below:
"To determine the eligibility of the candidates, the advertisement date i.e., 02.09.2013 was considered as the cutoff date. However, the bare perusal of advertisement will reveal that looking to the nature of the post, it was prescribed very specially that the person should be 10th class passed but should not have passed 12th or equivalent class."
Thus, as per the respondents'' own case, the
eligibility criterion was to be assessed on the anvil of
the cut off date i.e. 2.9.2013. On that day, admittedly,
the petitioner was not 10+2 qualified. The petitioner
appeared in the examination of 10+2 standard in
October 2013 and result of the examination was
declared on 16.12.2013. Thus, by no stretch of
imagination can the petitioner said to be over-qualified
on the date of issuance of the recruitment
advertisement. Consequently, he was within the limits
of permissible educational qualifications as prescribed
by the respondents while issuing the questioned
recruitment advertisement. The petitioner was
interviewed and was thereafter selected in the
process. Appointment order was issued in his favour.
The respondents thereafter cancelled the petitioner''s
appointment by order (Annex.R/1) noting that he had
cleared 12th standard examination, which fact came to
light on 17.1.2014 while verifying the documents. In
view of the facts noted above, it is the firm opinion of
this Court that the order (Annex.R/1) whereby the
appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the
ground of he being over-qualified is arbitrary, illegal,
unjust and perverse and cannot be sustained.
Educational qualification prevailing on the date of
advertisement was to be considered while assessing
the eligibility of a candidate and as such, the
subsequent gaining of the 12th standard certificate by
the petitioner cannot be treated to his detriment so as
to deprive him from the post on which he was selected
in the questioned recruitment process.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the
writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order (Annex.R/1) dated 6.2.2014 is hereby
quashed and set aside and resultantly, the order of
appointment (Annex.8) dated 13.1.2014 is hereby
restored. The petitioner shall be forthwith and not
later than within a period of one month from today
taken on duty. He shall be entitled to notional benefits
from 17.1.2014 till the date he joins duty. Actual
service benefits shall be conferred to the petitioner
from the date of joining.