The employer has the authority to prescribe qualifications for a post, assess the needs of public services, and determine the suitability of candidates based on specific job requirements. Judicial review has limitations in expanding the ambit of prescribed qualifications or deciding the equivalence of qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

1. The respondent No.1 issued an advertisement, thereby inviting applications for recruitment of officers of Scale-I, II and III and Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks including J&K Grameen Bank as well i.e. the respondent No. 2. The posts advertised by the respondent No. 1 included the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). The qualification prescribed for the above-mentioned post was Chartered Accountant or MBA in Finance from recognized University/Institute with one year experience in the relevant field. As per the notification, the candidates applying for Scale-II (Generalist and Specialists) and Scale-III posts, were required to appear for a single online examination and shortlisted candidates in the single examination were subsequently to be called for a common interview to be co-ordinated by the Nodal Regional Rural Banks with the help of NABARD and IBPs in consultation with the appropriate authority.

2. It was also provided in the notification that the candidates must necessarily produce the documents in original along with photocopies in support of their identity and eligibility pertaining to the category, nationality, age, educational qualification etc. as indicated in the online application form at the time of interview/document verification, as the case may be. Simultaneously, it was also provided that merely applying for Common Recruitment Process (CRP)/appearing for and being shortlisted in the online examination (preliminary and main) and/or in the subsequent interview and/or provisionally allotted and/or subsequent process would not imply that a candidate would necessarily be offered an employment in any of the Regional Rural Banks. It was further provided in the notification that while appearing for the interview, the candidate should produce valid prescribed documents as mentioned in the notification. In the absence of documents, the candidature of the candidates was to be cancelled. The documents which were required to be produced in support of candidate’s eligibility and identity included the experience certificate as on 14.08.2017, if applicable.

3. The petitioner, who claimed to possess degree of MBA in Finance and experience of more than one year in the relevant field, as he was working as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk in J&K Grameen Bank with effect from 24.03.2014 and further having an experience of working as Account Assistant with M/s Singh Construction Company with effect from 05.09.2011 to 27.12.2013, applied for the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). He qualified the examination and came to be selected as Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager) and was allotted the J&K Grameen Bank.

4. Vide order dated 15.03.2018, the petitioner was asked by the respondent No. 3 to submit documents for verification, which were submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 addressed a communication dated 01.05.2018 to the petitioner directing him to submit the balance sheets for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 of M/s Singh Construction Company within fifteen days failing which, the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner through email dated 05.05.2018 requested M/s Singh Construction Company for providing the balance sheets for the year, 2011, 2012, and 2013 but M/s Singh Construction Company refused to provide the balance sheets on the ground that the same was personal information and could not be shared. The petitioner on 10.05.2018 informed the respondent No. 3 in respect of the response from M/s Singh Construction Company and requested the respondent No.3 to take up the matter with regard to balance sheets directly with M/s Singh Construction Company. As the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not issue formal order of appointment, therefore, being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner assailed the communication dated 01.05.2018 through the medium of SWP bearing No. 1050/2018. Vide interim order dated 29.05.2