Kerala High Court
Sreenath C.P vs Punjab National Bank on 27 July, 2022
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12508 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SREENATH C.P.,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. SURESH KUMAR A.K.,
PRANAMAM, PUNNAD P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR 670 703.
BY ADVS.
K.P.PRADEEP
HAREESH M.R.
SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
NEENA ARIMBOOR
RASMI NAIR T.
T.T.BIJU
T.THASMI
M.J.ANOOPA
RESPONDENTS:
1 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, 7 BHIKA AIJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI
110607, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 FUNCTIONAL MANAGER,
(HRD),
DEPARTMENT CIRCLE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, MINI BY PASS
ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 016,
3 CHIEF MANAGER (HRD),
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE
MINI BYPASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE
673 016.
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
2
BY ADVS.
P.BENNY THOMAS
D.PREM KAMATH
TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
ABEL TOM BENNY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 7.07.2022, THE COURT 27.07.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
3
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.12508 of 2022
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-
"i.To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
or writs or order or direction to the respondents herein to
allow the petitioner to join in the post of Peon in Subordinate
Cadre, in terms of his appointment in Ext P5 order.
ii.To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
Writs or order or direction to set aside Ext P8 proceedings of
the 3rd respondent to the extent of it suggest cancellation of
Ext. P5 appointment order.
iii.To declare that the subsequent acquisition of higher
qualification, after the last date for submission of the
application for post, shall not disentitle the petitioner from
joining the post for which he is appointed in Ext P5."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Peon
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
pursuant to Exhibit P3 notification issued by the 1st
respondent Bank. Exhibit P3 notification specifically provided
the educational qualification for the post as follows:-
"Educational Qualification: Pass in XII standard with
basic reading and writing knowledge of English. The
candidates having completed higher qualification/s (i.e.
graduation and above are not eligible.)"
It is submitted that the petitioner's qualification as on the last
date of submission of applications, that is, 28.01.2022, was
pass in plus two. He had failed in the Degree examination in
the year 2021 and had attempted the examinations again.
The results were not declared. On 4.3.2022, the petitioner's
documents were verified and on 10.3.2022, an appointment
order was issued to him. It is stated that on 8.3.2022, the
final result of the BBA examination was published and the
petitioner passed the examination. It is stated that when the
petitioner approached the 2nd and 3rd respondent to join the
post as per Exhibit P5 appointment order, he was asked to
submit a fresh undertaking stating that he does not possess
any higher qualification as on the date of joining of the post.
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
Since the petitioner could not submit such an undertaking, he
was not permitted to join. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he was fully qualified as on the last
date for submitting applications and therefore he is to be
considered as fully qualified for appointment. It is stated that
Exhibit P3 specifically says that the age is to be reckoned as
on 1.1.2022. It is further contended that the educational
qualification is also liable to be considered as on the last date
for submission of applications and that refusal to permit the
petitioner to join duty is, therefore, completely misconceived.
This Court by interim order dated 7.4.2022 had directed that
the petitioner's candidature shall not be cancelled.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by
respondents 1 to 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
respondents that the petitioner has an alternative remedy
under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and that as
such the writ petition is not maintainable.
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
5. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Kerala Solvent
Ext.Ltd v. A.Unnikrishnan and Another [1994 (I) KLT 888],
it is contended that where a specific qualification is
prescribed in the notification itself and it is specified that the
candidate should not be overqualified, the termination of
services of an overqualified candidate would be perfectly in
order. The decision of the Apex Court in Chief Manager
Punjab National Bank and others v. Anit Kumar Das in
Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020 dated 3.11.2020 is also relied
on. It is contended that the fixation of a qualification of Plus
two and providing that the candidate should not be
overqualified is with a specific intention of providing
employment opportunities to under-qualified candidates as
well and that as such, permitting a person like the petitioner,
who is admittedly a graduate, to work as Peon would take
away the rights of those candidates, who are qualified as per
the notification and who would not be able to get the
employment, which are available to persons with
qualifications of graduation.
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side.
Exhibit P3 notification specified that the candidate should not
have completed higher educational qualification/
qualifications. It was specifically stated that persons, who
complete graduation and above are not eligible. It is the
petitioner's case that he had completed only his plus two
qualification as on the date of submitting of his application
and as on the last date for submission of the applications,
which,according to him is the crucial date. It cannot be said
that the petitioner had completed his graduation as on the
said dates, since completion of graduation occurs only when
he passes the course and can be considered as a graduate.
The petitioner, therefore. had not suppressed any material
fact, since admittedly his results were declared only on
8.3.2022. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondents including the decision in Avtar Singh v.
Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] was specifically with
regard to situations where the possession of the qualification
or material facts were suppressed by the applicant. In the
instant case, the petitioner cannot be said to have suppressed
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
any material fact in view of the fact that he did not possess
any higher educational qualification other than plus two at
the time of submission of this application. If that be so, the
contention raised that his application was liable to be rejected
cannot be accepted.
7. The further question is whether a person who is fully qualified
as on the last date for submission of application should
continued to be so qualified on the date of appointment as
well. On a consideration of the contentions raised, I am of the
opinion that the said contention cannot be accepted. A person
who is fully qualified as on the last date for submission of the
application is clearly entitled to have his case considered on
the basis of the qualification that he possesses as on the said
date. If that be so, the acquisition of a qualification on a late
date cannot be relied on him to contend that he is qualified
for appointment to the post. The converse also would,
therefore, be true. In view of the specific wording used in the
notification, a person who acquires the disqualification after
submission of the application and after the selection process
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
is complete cannot be held to be disqualified only on account
of the fact that he passed the degree examination and the
results were announced after the selection process was
complete. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion
that the contentions raised by the petitioner are liable to be
accepted.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. There will be a
direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join
the post of Peon in terms of Exhibit P5. Exhibit P8
proceedings are therefore set aside.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
W.P.(C).Nos.12508 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12508/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO S NO.
SSE/2016 DATED 28.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. HSE
3/2018/412079 DATED 105-2018 ISSUED BY
THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EXAMINATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
6.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION N0 HRD
248/2022 DATED 25.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
10.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
29.3.2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.3.2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. HRD 457/2022
DATED 30.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT
DATED 10.3.2022
True copy
PS to Judge
