Karnataka High Court
Basappa Nagappa Teji vs The Reigonal Manager on 26 May, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
-1-
WA No. 100046 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B VARALE , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100046 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
BASAPPA NAGAPPA TEJI
AGED. 39 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS TEMPORARY
ATTENDER, SYNDICATE BANK, KARADI BRANCH,
TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT,
R/O. C/O. M L MALLAPUR, SECTOR NO.36,
PLOT NO.9, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REIGONAL MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCE AND IR CELL
SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
Digitally signed
PLOT NO. 36, WARD NO.6B,
by JAGADISH T R
Location:
1ST FLOOR, TRIMURTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR -09
DHARWAD
Date: 2023.05.31
13:09:58 -0700
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK, KARADI BRANCH,
TQ. HUNGDUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.11.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.121558/2020 AS THE SAME BEING ERRONEOUS AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
WA No. 100046 of 2022
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant
assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated
16.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.121558/2020.
2. The appellant herein who was appointed as
attender in the respondent-bank on temporary basis. He was
appointed based on the declaration submitted by him at the
time of appointment that he has possessed SSLC. However,
later it was found from his bio-data wherein he had enclosed
certificate for having passed PUC second year, respondent-
bank decided to delete the name of the appellant's name
from the list of panel with immediate effect.
3. Learned Single Judge while examining the
grievance of the appellant herein was not inclined to
interfere with the action taken by the respondent-bank in
deleting the appellant's name from the list of panel. Learned
Single Judge placing reliance on the principles laid down by
WA No. 100046 of 2022
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Manager,
Panjab National Bank and Another vs Anita Kumar Das
reported in Scale 2020 12 392 held that appellant having
suppressed the fact that he possessed higher qualification
was ineligible to apply for the job. Learned Single Judge has
declined to grant any relief, as the appellant concealed the
fact that he has possessed higher qualification, as on the
date of sponsoring his name with the respondent-bank.
Consequently, writ petition is dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge,
the appellant is before this court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Perused the order
under challenge.
5. If the respondent-bank had prescribed the
eligibility criteria/educational qualification that only the
candidates who possessed SSLC are eligible for appointment
for the post of attender, the appellant herein being
admittedly over qualified was ineligible to apply for the job.
Appellant has consciously concealed the fact that he was
WA No. 100046 of 2022
over qualified and by his mischievous conduct denied
opportunity to another righteous candidate. This conduct of
the appellant in suppressing the material fact was later
noticed by the respondent-bank and respondent-bank has
every right to delete the appellant's name from the list of
panel.
6. If learned Single Judge has found that
respondent-bank was justified in canceling the appellant's
candidature, we do not find any illegality in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. A candidate at the time of
applying for the job is expected to give correct information of
his qualification. If the eligibility criteria is fixed by the
respondent-bank basing on a circular, the appellant herein
having consciously applied for the job knowing fully-well that
it is only the candidates possessing SSLC certificate are
entitled for apply for the job, is not entitled to seek redressal
of his grievance. It is also borne out from the records that
the appellant has not questioned the circular indicating that
candidates who have passed SSLC are eligible to apply for
the job. If appellant has not questioned the said circular, the
WA No. 100046 of 2022
order under challenge does not warrant any interference by
this Court. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
