The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of the KYC form as a binding admission against the petitioner in determining his eligibility for public employment.

JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. An advertisement was published by the Punjab National Bank on 18.11.2021, inviting applications for post of part-time sweepers in their establishment. The advertisement was published in newspapers. The petitioner applied for the post of a part-time sweeper and submitted his application form in the office of the Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur. After verification, the petitioner was selected for the post of a sweeper on 25.02.2022 and his name finds mention at Sr. No.5 in the select-list of candidates under the category of O.B.C. The Chief Manager of the Punjab Nation Bank last mentioned, respondent No.2, sent a letter for verification of the petitioner's documents on 30.03.2022. This letter required the petitioner to appear in the office of respondent No.2 on 06.04.2022 at about 10:30 in the morning hours. The petitioner appeared before the said respondent on 06.04.2022 for the verification of his documents. After all necessary verification was done, the respondent Bank issued appointment letters to other candidates, but not the petitioner.

2. The petitioner's case is that he had opened a bank account with another branch of the respondent Bank, where his date of birth mentioned is 20.05.1993. It was mentioned in his Aadhaar Card as well. The petitioner states that he had sought correction of his date of birth in the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card before making his application for employment with the Bank. The petitioner's case is that his date of birth, in fact, is 20.09.1994; not 20.05.1993. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to his transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, New Janta Public Junior High School, Village Nasarullapur, Deoband, Saharanpur. This document relates to the year 2008 when the petitioner passed his Class-VIII examination from the aforesaid institution. The certificate is countersigned by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur.

3. The petitioner, faced with inaction by the respondent Bank in issuing his appointment letter, approached this Court by means of Writ-A No.9832 of 2023, seeking a direction to the Bank to consider his case for appointment. This Court after noticing the discrepancy about the petitioner's date of birth in the Aadhaar Card and steps taken for its rectification, directed the respondent Bank to re-verify the entire documents relating to the petitioner and communicate the result to him. The last mentioned order was passed by this Court in Writ-A No.9832 of 2023 on 31.05.2023. A copy of the said order, along with all necessary documents, including his transfer certificate, was submitted by the petitioner in the office of respondent Bank on 17.06.2023. After a long lapse of time on 09.10.2023, the respondent Bank passed the order impugned of that date saying that his documents had been subjected to re-verification and it was observed that the petitioner had opened a current account in the name of M/s. Deepak Electronics, where his qualification mentioned in the KYC Form was ‘graduate’. Since the maximum qualification for the post of a sweeper indicated in the advertisement was Class-X, the petitioner was ineligible for appointment as a part-time sweeper.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, this writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner.

5. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 called upon the Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur, the respondent, who had made the said order, to file his own affidavit clearly stating if he asserts for a fact on oath that the petitioner is a graduate. This Court had indicated that the petitioner says that he is not a graduate, but had passed his Class-VIII examination. The Chief Manager was also cautioned that in case the petitioner was not indeed a graduate, necessary action may be initiated against him, because the stand taken in the order impugned was prima facie directed