Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJENDRA MENON, ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, JJ.
Atul Kumar S/o Shri Ashok kumar Mishra - Appellants
Versus
The Punjab National Bank through Its Chairman & Anr. - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.1966 of 2015
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8604 of 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the equivalence of the appellant's qualification with the prescribed qualification by the bank, as determined by relevant judgments from the Delhi High Court and Gauhati High Court.
Headnote:
Qualification - Appointment Dispute - [B.Tech. in Electrical and Electronics Engineering] - [Delhi High Court and Gauhati High Court judgments] - The court discussed the equivalence of the appellant's qualification with the prescribed qualification by the bank, referring to judgments from the Delhi High Court and Gauhati High Court. The court held that the appellant's qualification was equivalent to the prescribed qualification, directing the bank to appoint him on the post for which he participated in the selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, with a B.Tech. in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, applied for an IT Officer position at Punjab National Bank. Despite being initially successful, the bank later canceled his candidature, citing a discrepancy in his qualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's qualification was equivalent to the prescribed qualification by the bank, as established by judgments from the Delhi High Court and Gauhati High Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's qualification was equivalent to the prescribed qualification by the bank for the IT Officer position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judgments from the Delhi High Court and Gauhati High Court, which established the equivalence of qualifications similar to the appellant's, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's qualification was indeed equivalent.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court directed the bank to appoint the appellant on the post for which he participated in the selection process.
Rajendra Menon, J.
Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned Writ Court on 4.8.2015 in CWJC No. 8604 of 2015, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. Even though the order dated 4.8.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court is hardly of five lines but the issue involved in this case requires consideration. The order dated 4.8.2015 reads as under:-
“Petitioner wants to approach the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. Let him do so. The Court will not come in his way.
However, the claim of the petitioner with regard to his right for appointment on the basis of his qualification cannot be acceded to.
The writ application is disposed of with above observation.”
3. The writ petitioner-appellant herein had a bright academic career and having obtained a degree of B. Tech. (Bachelor of Technology) in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute University, Maduravoyal, Chennai, applied for appointment as IT Officer (Scale-I) in the respondent-Punjab National Bank in pursuance to the advertisement issued by them. The writ petitioner-appellant applied and was issued with the Admit Card to appear in the tentative examination which was to be held between 14.02.2015 and 15.02.2015. He was found eligible based on the qualification acquired by him, appeared in the examination conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) and obtained more than the cut off marks prescribed for the general category, which was 104 marks and was short listed for appearing in the interview, the petitioner obtained 127 marks. The appellant appeared in the common interview again organized by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) and in the final result uploaded on the website, it was declared that the appellant had been declared successful for appointment on the post of I.T. Officer (Scale- 1) having obtained 62.80 out of 100 marks and has been provisionally allotted appointment in the Punjab National Bank, respondent herein.
4. The appellant, according to the averments made in the writ petition, was waiting for appointment order in pursuant to the same when, all of a sudden, he received an order dated 9.5.2015 from the Chief Manager, Human Resources Development Division, Punjab National Bank indicating that the candidature of the appellant has been cancelled as the educational qualification prescribed was not found to be equivalent. The qualification prescribed by the Bank for the post in question was 4 year Engineering Decree in Computer Science/Computer application/ Information Technology/ Electronics/Electronics & Telecommunications/ Electronics & Communication/ Electronics and Instrumentation or Post Graduate Degree. It is the case of the Bank that as the appellant is only a degree holder in electrical and electronics which is not the prescribed qualification, therefore, his candidature has been cancelled. The appellant challenged this order in the writ petition and it was his case that his qualification is identical and merely because of the nomenclature of the subject, the appellant cannot be discriminated, the writ Court having dismissed the writ petition, this appeal.
5. We have heard the matter in detail and while hearing the matter on 10.5.2017, two judgments, one of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Nisha Vs. Union of India and others (W.P. (C) 6100/2012 and CM No. 16465/2012 and another of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Wilfred Vanlaliana & Ors. Vs. The State of Mizoram & Ors. (WP(C) No. 2 of 2012 were brought to our notice and on going through these judgments, we found that it has been held in these two cases that degrees or qualification like B.Tech. in Electronics and instrumentation or electrical and electronics Engineering are equivalent and similar qualifications and have been held to be identical in nature. Taking note of the aforesaid, we directed the Bank to consider the claim of the appellant in the backdr
