Bombay High Court
Vineet Kumar vs Union Bank Of India Through Its General ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
2023:BHC-OS:15283-DB
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO.26020 OF 2022
Vineet Kumar ]
Age: 34 years,Occ: Service, residing at ]
Quarter No.57, Shri Krishna Nagar, Road No.14, ]
Near Canara Bank, Patna, P. O. - Shri Krishna ]
Nagar, P. S. - Buddha Colony, District - Patna ]
(Bihar) 800 001. ] .. Petitioner.
v/s.
1 Union Bank of India ]
through its General Manager, ]
Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ]
2 Managing Director & C.E. O. ]
Union Bank of India, Central Office, ]
Union Bani Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ]
3 Chief General Manager (H.R.) ]
Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ]
4 General Manager (H. R.) ]
Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ]
5 Deputy General Manager (H.R.) ]
Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ]
6 Assistant General Manager (H. R.) ]
Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ]
7 Executive Director (H.R.) ]
Union Bank of India ]
Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan ]
Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ].. Respondents.
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2023.
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
Mr. Rudresh Jagdale i/b. Mr. Rohit Mangsule, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok D. Shetty with Ms. Rita K. Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.):-
By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing and setting
aside of the letter dated 21st March,2022 issued to him by Respondent
No.1 whereby the provisional appointment of the Petitioner was cancelled
as the Petitioner did not conform to the experience in Risk as notified by
the Bank in its Recruitment Notification.
2 On 12th August, 2021, Respondent No.1 issued a Recruitment
Notification ("the said Recruitment Notification") inviting applications for
recruitment to various posts in the Specialized Segment. One of these
posts, with which we are concerned with in this Petition, was of
"Manager (Risk)". The said Recruitment Notification provided that, in
respect of the post of Manager (Risk), the work experience should be as
follows:-
" Relevant post qualification of Risk related work
experience in Credit Risk and Risk Modeling in Financial
Institutions/ Rating Agencies/ Brokerage firms - Minimum
2 years."
3 Annexure - II to the said Recruitment Notification gave the
format of the Experience Certificate to be furnished. The said format of
the Experience Certificate provides that, while mentioning the details of
his / her employment with previous employers, the candidates should
mention "Nature of duties performed (Clearly define the duties relating to
the post applied for as mentioned in the recruitment notification)"
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
4 The Petitioner applied for the post of Manager (Risk). After
going through the initial process, the Petitioner was required to undergo
written tests conducted on 9th October, 2021, which he passed, and was
short listed for an interview. The name of the Petitioner appeared at Sr.
No.37 in the list of candidates qualified for a personal interview for
Manager (Risk). The Petitioner was thereafter called upon to appear for
an Interview on 17th December, 2021. The Petitioner appeared for the
interview. After the interview, Respondent No.1 published a list of
candidates in merit list/ final selection list. At that time, Respondent No.1
also stated that "The merit list is provisional and subject to the fulfillment
of all terms and conditions of the Notification dated 12 th August, 2021."
The Petitioner was shown at Serial No.9 in the Final Selection list / Merit
list of the candidates for the post of Manager (Risk).
5 Thereafter, a letter dated 19th January, 2022 was addressed by
Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner which contained a provisional offer of
appointment to the said post of Manager (Risk). The said letter
categorically stated that the offer of appointment was provisional and
subject to, inter alia, submission of all the required documents in support
of eligibility and these documents being found in order. It also stated
that, in case it was observed at any time, even after the Petitioner joined
the services of the Bank, that the submitted documents were false,
incorrect, tampered with, fabricated or suppressed any material
information, the Petitioner would be dismissed from the services of the
Bank.
6 Thereafter, by an e-mail dated 17 th February, 2022 addressed
to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 informed him that, after scrutiny of
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
documents, it had been found that the Petitioner had not submitted
certain documents. One of the said documents was the requisite
Experience Certificate in Risk as per the prescribed format. By an e-mail
dated 22nd February, 2022, the Petitioner, inter alia, furnished to
Respondent No.1 an Experience Certificate in Risk dated 3 rd February,
2022 issued by ICICI Bank Limited. The said Certificate reads as under:-
" TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Vineet Kumar has been a full time
permanent employee of this bank from May 27, 2019 to
August 20, 2021. He was based out of Patna and worked for at
least 48 hours a week. At the time of exit he was in the grade
of Deputy Manager-I.
Following are the roles and responsibilities handled by him:
1) Identifying Checking and Controlling the Risks in Jewel loan
Portfolio.
This letter has been issued on the basis of specific employee
request.
We wish him success in his future endeavors.
Yours faithfully,
Authorized Signatory
Sreeja Nair
HR Manager-HRMG."
7 Thus, the Experience Certificate produced by the Petitioner
shows that he had experience in identifying, checking and controlling the
Risks in Jewel loan Portfolio.
8 By an e-mail dated 23rd February, 2022, Respondent No.1
informed the Petitioner that, after scrutiny of the documents submitted by
him, it was observed that the Petitioner had not submitted the Experience
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
Certificate in the proper format as per the said Recruitment Notification
and that his experience in Risk was not as required as per the said
Recruitment Notification.
9 The Petitioner, by an e-mail dated 27 th February, 2022,
requested ICICI Bank to issue an Experience Certificate to him in the
prescribed format. However, by an e-mail dated 2 nd March, 2022, ICICI
Bank stated that no such letter would be issued .
10 Thereafter, by the impugned letter dated 21 st March, 2022,
Respondent No.1 cancelled the provisional appointment of the Petitioner.
The relevant part of the said letter reads as under:-
" During verification/ scrutiny of documents/
Experience Certificate submitted by you for completion
of pre-recruitment formalities, it is observed that you
are/were working as Deputy Manager - I in ICICI Bank
and responsibilities were Identifying, Checking and
Controlling the Risk in Jewel Loan Portfolio which
does not confirm the experience in Risk as notified by
the Bank. Hence, the provisional offer of appointment
No.मास : भर्ती :HRD: REC:0348:2022 dated 19.01.2022
stands cancelled."
11 Thereafter, the Petitioner made representations dated 24th
March, 2022 and 31st March, 2022 to Respondent No.1, contending that
his provisional appointment was wrongly cancelled and that he fulfilled
the requirement in the said Recruitment Notification.
12 In these circumstances, the Petitioner has sought the quashing
and setting aside of the said letter dated 21 st March, 2022 whereby his
provisional offer of appointment was cancelled by Respondent No.1. It is
S.R.JOSHI 5 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
the case of the Petitioner that he could not produce the Experience
Certificate in the required format as his previous employer ICICI Bank
refused to furnish the Experience Certificate in such a format. It is also
the case of the Petitioner that his experience in identifying, checking and
controlling the Risks in Jewel Loan Portfolio, for a period of more than
two years, in ICICI Bank, met the Work Experience of minimum two years
in Credit Risk and Risk Modeling in Financial Institutions/ Rating
Agencies/ Brokerage firms required by the said Recruitment Notification.
13 It is also the case of the Petitioner that, since he had gone
through the interview process and had been provisionally appointed, his
appointment ought not to have been cancelled at this stage. In support of
his submission, the Petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v/s. Uzair Imran & Others (Civil Appeal
Nos........ of 2023 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No.21319 of 2022]
and, in particular, paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof, which read as under:-
"15:- Notwithstanding this settled legal position, the
stage when ineligibility is cited for not offering employment
also assumes importance. It is indeed indisputable that
none has any legal right to claim public employment. In
terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, a candidate has only
a right to be considered thereof. Once a candidate is
declared ineligible to participate in the selection process at
the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the
process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily
rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy in accordance
with law. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the
threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the
selection process and ultimately his name figures in the
merit list - though such candidate has no indefeasible right
to claim appointment - he does have a limited right of
being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment.
Given the stages of the process that the candidate has
S.R.JOSHI 6 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of
appointment but a reasonable expectation of being
appointed having regard to his position in the merit list
could arise. The employer, if it is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no
authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the
candidate out from the range of appointment, as
distinguished from the zone of consideration, without
rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by
Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation,
nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification
by way of reason. If plausible justification is provided, the
courts would be loath to question the justification but the
justification must be such that it is rational and justifiable,
and not whimsical or capricious, warranting non-
interference.
16:- In the facts of the present case, the stage of declaration
of ineligibility seems to us to turn the tide in favour of the
third respondent. If the appellant had declared the third
respondent as ineligible based on the appellant's
appreciation of the educational qualification of the third
respondent at the threshold, the situation would have
entirely been different. However, it was not at the
threshold that the third respondent was considered
ineligible. As the factual narrative would reveal, the
appellant had considered the third respondent eligible,
allowed him to take part in the various tests in connection
with the selection process, interviewed him, placed his
name quite high in the merit list, and thereafter sent him
for 15 days' pre-induction training starting from 15 th
March, 1996. It was after a week that the letter dated 22 nd
March, 1996 was issued which resulted in ouster of the
third respondent from the range of appointment."
14 Having heard the Counsel for the parties and having perused
the documents on record, we are unable to accept the submissions of the
Petitioner. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner did not furnish the
Experience Certificate in the prescribed format which required him to
S.R.JOSHI 7 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
clearly define the duties relating to the post of Manager (Risk) applied for
by him, as mentioned in the said Recruitment Notification. Thus, the
Petitioner did not furnish the Experience Certificate from ICICI Bank
which clearly defined his duties and showed that he had Risk related work
experience in Credit Risk and Risk Modeling in Financial Institutions/
Rating Agencies / Brokerage Firms of a minimum of two years, as
required by the said Recruitment Notification. Further, be that as it may,
the Experience Certificate furnished by the ICICI Bank shows that, during
the course of his employment with ICICI Bank, the Petitioner was
handling the roles and responsibilities of identifying, checking and
controlling the Risks in the Jewel Loan Portfolio. In our view, experience
in identifying, checking and controlling the Risks in the Jewel Loan
Portfolio is very different from the work experience required by
Respondent No.1 by the said Recruitment Notification in Credit Risk and
Risk Modeling in Financial Institutions/ Rating Agencies/ Brokerage firms.
In our view, the learned Counsel for the Respondents is correct in
submitting that the Risk in Jewel Loan Portfolio would be very different
from the Credit Risk and Risk Modeling in Financial Institutions/ Rating
Agencies/ Brokerage firms. While handling the role and responsibility of
identifying, checking and controlling the Risk in the Jewel Loan Portfolio,
the Petitioner would be concerned with the valuation of the jewellery and
the metal from which different jewellery would be made (for example -
gold, silver etc.) This experience, obviously, is very different from having
experience in assessing the Credit Risk of a customer and would also be
very different from Risk Modeling in Financial Institutions/ Rating
Agencies/ Brokerage firms. In these circumstances, in our view,
Respondent No.1 was correct in cancelling the provisional appointment of
S.R.JOSHI 8 of 9
10-wpl-26020-2022-judgment.doc
the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner's experience was not as
per the experience required by the said Recruitment Notification.
15 We are also unable to accept the submission of the Petitioner
based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Uzair Imram (supra) that the said letter dated 21 st March, 2022 ought to
be quashed and set aside as the Petitioner was declared ineligible at a very
late stage in the selection process and after having been provisionally
appointed. The documents referred to hereinabove clearly show that, at
each stage in the selection process, the Petitioner was put to notice that
his appointment would be confirmed only if he furnished requisite
documents and his Work Experience was as required by the said
Recruitment Notification. Having been put to notice, it is now not open
for the Petitioner to contend that he was declared ineligible at a very late
stage. Further, in our view, for the reasons given above, the justification
given by the Respondents in the said letter dated 21 st March, 2022 for
cancelling the provisional appointment of the Petitioner are rational and
justifiable, and therefore, do not warrant any interference, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, for these
reasons also, we are not inclined to quash the said letter dated 21 st March,
2022.
16 In the aforesaid circumstances, and for all reasons stated
hereinabove, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 9 of 9
