IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 6 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 1248 of 2022 RAJKUMAR BALMIKI Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Appearance:

Shri Mohammad Amir Khan - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal- Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him joining on the post of Sweeper in pursuance to the appointment order, dated 18.12.2021, with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the respondent Bank inviting applications for filling up post of Sweeper vide advertisement filed as Annexure P/2. As per the advertisement, the requisite age for appointment on the post was 18 to 24 years. However, relaxation of five years was given to candidates belonging to SC/ST category. The petitioner was accordingly entitled to relaxation of age upto 29 years.

3. The petitioner submitted his application for the post wherein he mentioned his age to be 20.07.1992. He was selected for the post and was accordingly issued appointment order, dated 18.12.2021. The petitioner was then called upon to submit his certificates for verification. He submitted copy of his certificates including copy of Adhar Card, District Employment Exchange Entry, Voter ID card etc. alongwith his mark sheets.

4. On verification of his documents, the respondent Bank gathered discrepancy Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH in his date of birth inasmuch as his date of birth mentioned in Adhar Card and Employment Exchange Entry was 20.07.1986 while on his Voter ID Card the date of birth of 1983 was mentioned. Further, his mark sheet contains his date of birth as 20.07.1992. The respondent thereupon asked the petitioner to submit his affidavit regarding his correct date of birth. The petitioner submitted his affidavit on 01.01.2022 wherein his age is stated to be more than 34 years while he stated on oath that his date of birth is 20.07.1986.

5 . In view of the aforesaid, the respondent Bank cancelled petitioner’s appointment vide communication, dated 01.01.2022 (Annexure R/8).

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s date of birth mentioned in his mark sheet is correct and the same should have been accepted. He submitted that for purposes of proof of age, the date of birth mentioned in the mark sheet is acceptable as against the date of birth mentioned in Adhar Card etc. He also submitted that once the appointment order was issued in his favour, the petitioner is entitled to get joining on the post and the action of respondents in denying him joining was illegal. He thus prayed for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Sweeper.

7. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel supported the action of the respondents and submitted that there was serious discrepancy in the date of birth of petitioner in his various documents. He was, therefore, asked to submit his affidavit in this regard. In his affidavit, the petitioner himself stated his date of birth to be 20.07.1986. Thus, he was not entitled to appointment and accordingly the Bank has cancelled his appointment vide order, dated 01.01.2022. The same is not challenged by the petitioner. The learned counsel therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

8. Considered the arguments and perused the records.

9. The requisite age for appointment on post in question was 18 to 24 years.

Being the candidate of reserved category, the petitioner was entitled to relaxation of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH five years in age i.e. upto 29 years as on 01.01.2021. Thus, the petitioner could get appointment only if his date of birth is 20.07.1992 as stated by him in his application.

10. The petitioner submitted copy of his Adhar Card etc. wherein his date of birth is stated to be 20.07.1986. On being asked, he submitted his affidavit wherei