Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 247 Del
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2246/2014
% 12th January , 2015
VIKAS AGARWAL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.Chakraborty, Adv. and Mr.
Deepak Malik, Adv.
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is filed by the petitioner questioning the rejection order of the respondent-
Punjab National Bank thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for
the post of Manager(Marketing)-MMG-Scale-II advertised in terms of the
advertisement dated 24.6.2011.
2. The subject advertisement is filed as Annexure P-1 by the
petitioner to the writ petition. Serial no.5 of the advertisement under the
heading of the eligibility criteria with respect to the post of the Manager
(Marketing)-MMG-Scale-II requires that the candidate must have two years
experience in the financial sector in marketing of financial products. The
issue is whether the petitioner had this necessary experience and had given
the necessary certificates as required by serial no.5 of the advertisement at
the time of giving of his application.
3(i) Petitioner has failed to show me any document showing that
alongwith the application for the post in terms of the advertisement dated
24.6.2011, petitioner had given the necessary experience documents of
marketing of financial products for 2 years.
(ii) Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the certificate of
HDFC Bank Ltd. dated 30.12.2013 showing that petitioner was engaged in
the sales of financial products from 17.8.2009 to 17.10.2010, however this
certificate does not help the petitioner for two reasons.
(iii) Firstly, this certificate is dated 30.12.2013 and in this case the
selection process is of a much earlier date in 2011 in terms of the
advertisement dated 24.6.2011, and the interview was conducted on
30.12.2011. Obviously, therefore, this certificate dated 30.12.2013 was not
in existence on 30.12.2011, and therefore, could not have been submitted on
or before 30.12.2011 as being an experience certificate for the post in
question.
(iv) The second reason for rejecting this certificate is that a total
experience period of marketing of financial products given in the certificate
dated 30.12.2013 is from 17.8.2009 to 17.10.2010, ie a period of about one
year and two months and which therefore does not fulfill the requirement of
two years experience in terms of the subject advertisement dated 24.6.2011.
(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner then sought to rely upon the
experience certificate given by the ABN Amro Bank dated 30.3.2009, but a
reference to this certificate shows that that the said ABN Amro Bank has
only given a certificate that the petitioner as per his last designation was
Associate Manager (Personal Banking). This certificate therefore of about
11 months from 28.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 is not with respect to marketing of
financial products, and thus would not help the petitioner. Also, there is
nothing filed before this Court that this certificate was given by the
petitioner alongwith his application pursuant to the advertisement dated
24.6.2011, or at the time of the interview on 30.12.2011 and what is relevant
in law is the giving of the experience certificate by the candidate at the
relevant time and not much later after the selection processes have been
completed.
4. I may at this stage note that the respondent-bank has filed
alongwith the counter-affidavit as Annexure R-1 dated 30.12.2011 a hand
written certificate given by the petitioner himself with respect to his
experience in HDFC Bank Ltd. and ABN Amro Bank, and therefore it is
clear that the experience certificates which are now relied upon by the
petitioner with respect to HDFC Bank Ltd and ABN Amro Bank were never
given by the petitioner on 30.12.2011 when he was called for the interview,
and when he had only given a self-certificate.
5. In view of the above it is clear that the petitioner not only did
not have the necessary experience in marketing of financial products of two
years, but also the petitioner failed to file the necessary experience
certificates (assuming that he has experience of two years) during the
selection process i.e at the relevant time of submitting of the experience
certificates.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 12, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J ib
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!