Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, JJ.
Punjab National Bank - Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam Kumar and Others - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.28 of 2019; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2075 of 2019
Decided on : 29-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Murad Khan, Sarvesh K. Dubey, Adv.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the cut-off date for determining eligibility in recruitment processes must be strictly adhered to, and subsequent qualifications after the cut-off date cannot be considered.
Headnote:
Eligibility Criteria - Recruitment Dispute - [IBPS Recruitment, Eligibility Criteria, Allahabad High Court Orders] - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for recruitment, the interpretation of the cut-off date for qualification, and the influence of previous court orders on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the eligibility criteria for recruitment of Probationary Officers/Management Training. The respondent had cleared the written examination but was not issued permission for the interview due to discrepancies in the documents. Subsequently, the Allahabad High Court permitted the respondent to attend the interview, but the respondent's provisional offer of appointment was later canceled by the Punjab National Bank (PNB) due to qualification date discrepancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's qualification did not meet the eligibility criteria as of the cut-off date, and the previous orders of the Allahabad High Court did not absolve the respondent from the failure to meet the qualification requirements.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the interpretation of the eligibility criteria, the influence of previous court orders, and the authority of the PNB to cancel the respondent's candidature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cut-off date for determining eligibility must be strictly adhered to, and subsequent qualifications after the cut-off date cannot be considered. The court also emphasized that the authority issuing the recruitment criteria is bound by the representation made in the advertisement and cannot act contrary to it.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The appeals filed by the PNB and the IBPS were allowed.
S. Muralidhar, J.
These two appeals are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 16th November 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing WP (C) 4674 of 2015 filed by Respondent No.1.
2. The background facts are that the Institute of Banking and Personnel Selection (“IBPS”) issued an advertisement on 10th July 2013 for recruitment on the post of Probationary Officers/Management Training (“PO/MT”) on behalf of a large number of banks which included the Punjab National Bank (“PNB”), the Appellant in LPA 28 of 2019. One of the conditions/eligibility criteria as specified in advertisement was that a candidate who applied in terms thereof should have all the educational qualifications from a recognised university/institution and further that the result of such examination should have been declared on or before 1 st July 2013.
3. It was further stipulated in the advertisement as under:
“(2) All the educational qualifications mentioned should be from a recognized University/Institution and the result should have been declared on or before 01-07-2013. Proper document from the Board/University for having declared the result on or before 01-07-2013 has to be submitted at the time of interview. The date of passing the examination which is reckoned for eligibility will be the date of passing appearing on the mark sheet/Provisional certificate.”
4. Respondent No.1 appeared in the written examination and cleared it. He was issued a call letter for the interview to be held on 7th January 2014. On scrutiny of the papers brought by him it was noticed that the documents were not in accordance with the requirements of the advertisement. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 was not issued permission to appear in the next stage of the recruitment process i.e. for the interview.
5. Meanwhile, 18 persons who had taken the written exam had not received the call letters for interview, including Respondent No.1 herein, filed a writ petition being Case Service Bench No. 93 of 2014 in the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. It is important to note that while other banks were made parties to the said petition, PNB was not.
6. In certain petitions of other aggrieved persons similarly placed, an interim order was issued by the Division Bench (DB) of that High Court on 9th January 2014 permitting the said Petitioners to appear for the interview. Subsequently, by an order dated 18th February 2014 in Case Service Bench 93 of 2014 the DB of that High Court noted that the said Petitioners had already appeared for the interview and that “whatever the result of the interview is, that could be acted upon” by IBPS. The said petition was disposed of accordingly.
7. Soon thereafter an application for modification of the order dated 18th February 2014 was filed in Case Service Bench No. 93 of 2014 by the Petitioners in that case before the DB of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. It was pointed out that “that the order dated 18.02.2014 has wrongly been transcribed in this writ petition as the Petitioners have not appeared in the interview and their case is similar to the case of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 91.(S/B) of 2014.” It was, therefore, prayed that “the aforesaid order may be modified/corrected to the extent of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 91(S/B) of 2014.”
8. The said application was allowed by the DB of that High Court on 4th March 2014 and the order dated 18th February 2014 was modified/corrected to read inter alia to the effect that the IBPS “wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioners and has wrongly stopped them from appearing in the interview. Once the requirement was complete as contemplated under the law, the opposite party no. 4 was bound to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview. The opposite party has misdirected itself and has taken a wrong decision without application of mind, instead of adverting to the correct decision as contemplated under the law. Admittedly, the r
