JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, Punjab National Bank, who submits that affidavit-in-opposition as well as an additional affidavit have been filed by the said respondents. Shri P.J. Phukan, learned counsel is present for the Gauhati University.

2. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to a communication dated 30.06.2022 whereby her appointment as Peon in the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter PNB) has been cancelled.

3. The facts projected in the writ petition is that an advertisement was issued by the PNB for filling up certain posts including 5 (five) posts of Peon in the unreserved category. Under Clause-5, the eligibility criteria have been stated regarding the age as well as the qualification. Since the issue hinges around qualification, it would be necessary to mention that the prescribed qualification was “minimum and maximum pass in XIIth standard or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English”. The advertisement also stipulated that candidates having completed higher qualification i.e. Graduation and above are not eligible. It is the case of the petitioner that she had applied for the said post on 12.02.2022 and has claimed to have met the eligibility criteria, both in terms of the age and qualification. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that on the date of submission of such application, the petitioner was a Higher Secondary pass candidate. In the said recruitment process, the petitioner had come out successfully and was offered the appointment vide order dated 25.03.2022. However, it appears that some verification process was undertaken by the Bank after which, the impugned letter dated 30.06.2022 was issued by which the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. The said impugned letter has stated that the petitioner was a Graduate which she had obtained in the year 2021 and her Grade Sheet was issued on 23.12.2021.

4. Shri Tahbildar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apparently the impugned order is erroneous as the petitioner was not a Graduate as on 23.12.2021. He submits that the Bank itself has clarified the issue in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 22.09.2022 whereby the matter has been clarified to the extent that the date stated in the impugned letter was mistakenly done and the petitioner had actually become a Graduate on 15.02.2022. However, the Bank has justified its action by stating that since 15.02.2022 was the last date for submission of application on which date, the petitioner had obtained the Graduation and accordingly, she was disqualified and therefore the impugned order is still sustainable.

5. Shri Tahbildar, the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the advertisement has submitted that the age as well as qualification are to be reckoned as on 01.01.2022 on which date, the petitioner was not a Graduate. Alternatively he submits that if 01.01.2022 was the date only for reckoning the age, admittedly the application was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement only on 12.02.2022 on which date, she was not a Graduate. It is submitted that the impugned order is unreasonable and unduly harsh as a hyper-technical approach has been taken by the Bank by disqualifying the petitioner in spite of her eligibility and selection in the recruitment process. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner be directed to be allowed to join her post. The learned counsel further apprises this Court that there is an interim order to keep one post vacant.

6. Shri A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, PNB has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 has been passed after a proper verification. He however admits that there was an error in the impugned order in considering the petitioner to be a Graduate of the year 2021. At the same time, he also submits that the pos