Madras High Court
A.T.Muthuvijayan vs The Union Of India on 28 September, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14426 and 14429 of 2021
A.T.Muthuvijayan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
3rd Floor, Banking Division,
Sansad Marg, Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Reserve Bank of India,
Represented by its General Manager,
Department of Banking Supervision,
Central Office, Centre-1,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai – 400 005.
3.The Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,
Punjab National Bank,
Corporate Office,
Banking Financial Services,
Plot No.4, Sector – 10,
DWARKA, New Delhi – 110 075.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
4.The General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Human Resource Development Division,
Head Office, No.7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110 066.
5.The Zonal Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
No.46-49, PNB Towers,
5th Floor, Royapettah High Road,
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
6.The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Human Resource Development Division,
Circle Office, Khandha Enclave,
179 – Sarojini Street,
Ram Nagar, Coimbatore 641 009.
7.The Chief Manager,
Deputy Circle Head,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office,
Human Resource Development Division,
4th Floor, Aparna Towers, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 010. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating
to the impugned notification issued by the seventh respondent, dated 26.02.2021
calling for the applications for recruitment of persons in subordinate
cadre-2020-21, for vacancies in Madurai circle and the same was published in
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
Tamil daily “Dinamani” issue dated 28.02.2021 in respect of eligibility criteria
fixed particularly in a portion of clause 2 and 3 of notification and quash the same
and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider and select the petitioner to
the post of Peon in subordinate cadre-2020-21 based on the application of the
petitioner, dated 04.03.202 without applying the said portion of clause 2 and 3 of
the notification.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan
For R1 : Mr.Narayana Ram
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned notification issued by the seventh respondent,
dated 26.02.2021, in respect of eligibility criteria fixed particularly in clause 2
and 3 of the notification and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider
and select the petitioner to the post of Peon in subordinate cadre-2020-21 based
on the application of the petitioner, dated 04.03.2021 without applying the said
portion of clause 2 and 3 of the notification.
2.Heard Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Narayana Ram, learned Counsel for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
3.The petitioner states that he completed 10th examination in the year 2014
and plus two in the year 2016. The petitioner also completed B.E. in the year
2020 at KLN Engineering College, Pottapalayam, Madurai. He states that he
belongs to DNC community.
4.The seventh respondent issued recruitment notification inviting
application for the post of Peon in Subordinate Cadre 2020-21 to fill up the
vacancies in Madurai and few other districts in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner also
applied to the same on 04.03.2021. It is admitted that in the impugned
recruitment notification, it is specifically stated that the minimum and maximum
educational qualification is 12th standard with basic reading and writing
knowledge in English and that the candidates having completed higher
qualification (Graduation and above) cannot apply. Clause 3 of the recruitment
notification specifically stipulates that eligible candidates should be a domicile of
district, for which vacancies have been notified. The above Writ Petition is filed
challenging the Clause 2 and 3 in the recruitment notification, that was published
on 28.02.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 2 and 3 are
against the constitutional guarantee meant to be given to every citizens and that
both clauses should be declared unconstitutional. It is further stated that the
disqualification for possessing higher qualification is against the constitutional
principles. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohamed Riazul Usman Gani and
others vs District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others reported in AIR 2000
SC 919.
6.From the portion of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the
Honourable Supreme Court has observed that a criterion, which has the effect of
denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he
is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. It was further
observed that a candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot
be excluded from consideration for selection and that denying consideration to a
candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line would definitely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
violative of Articles of 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of
Allahabad High Court in Writ A.No.69034 of 2009, in the case of Pankaj Kumar
Dubey vs Punjab National Bank and others. The Allahabad High Court held as
follows:
21. Before parting, it is noteworthy to mention that now the
respondents themselves have prescribed standard XII as the minimum
qualification for the post of peon, as is evident from letter by the Bank
dated 6/7/2011 (Annexure 1 to the amendment application). The
respondents have filed their counter affidavit in reply to the amendment
application but have not denied the said fact. Sri D. Vaish admits that now
the minimum qualification for the post of peon is intermediate. This is
clear recognition by the Bank that higher education of intermediate is
infact a necessity for due performance of duties attached to the post of
peon, in a bank.
22. Thus, higher education if not a magic wand, but surely a jewel on one's
crown; if not a hero but can never be a villain. A fortiori, the denial of
appointment to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Impugned order dated
17/4/2008 is quashed. Respondents are directed to forthwith permit the
petitioner to join his duties in pursuance to the offer of appointment dated
29/3/2008 and he shall be paid his regular salary, in accordance with law.
8.However, the two judgments relied upon by the petitioner cannot be
applied strictly in the present case. In the judgment of Allahabad High Court, this
Court noticed that the minimum qualification was not notified to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
Similarly, from the extracted portion of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, this Court is able to see
that the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court can be distinguished on facts. In
the present case, the minimum and maximum educational qualification required
for the candidate to apply for the post of Peon is specifically prescribed. Once 12th
standard is the minimum and maximum educational qualification as per the
recruitment notification and there is a specific clause that candidates having
higher qualification cannot apply, this Court is not in a position to appreciate the
arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgments if
the Allahabad High Court and the extracted portion of the judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court referred to in the affidavit.
9.The seventh respondent, as the authorized Officer under HR Department
of the respondent Bank, is competent to issue any notification as per the decision
of the Bank. While prescribing educational qualification for the candidates, the
Court will not interfere with the educational qualification, as the respondent bank
has an independent right to prescribe the minimum and maximum educational
qualification for the candidates to fill up the posts of Peon. The petitioner, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
participated in the selection process, has now filed the Writ Petition challenging
two clauses in the recruitment notification on the ground that it violates Article 14
of the Constitution of India. The eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondents
is the prerogative of respondents and this Court normally will not entertain this
Writ Petition.
10.This Court is unable to entertain the Writ Petition, as a bona fide
litigation, as seen from the factual averments made in the affidavit filed in support
of the Writ Petition. The recruitment notification was issued on 28.02.2021 and
the petitioner has also applied for the post of Peon pursuant to the advertisement.
While submitting the application on 04.03.2021, the petitioner has not raised any
issue. The petitioner knowing fully well that the minimum and maximum
educational qualification has been prescribed in the recruitment notification as a
pass in 12th standard, had applied for the post. It is stated by the petitioner
himself that the petitioner is waiting to get interview call, even though he is
supposed to know that he is not qualified or eligible to apply as per the
advertisement. After a period of about seven months, the petitioner has
approached this Court with a direction to quash Clause 2 and 3 of the recruitment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
notification.
11.The notification is for filling up the post of Peon in several districts in
this State and the Writ Petition is filed with an intention to stall the selection
process. If the Writ Petition challenging eligibility norms is entertained at this
stage, the whole process of selection will be in jeopardy. Rights of prospective
candidates will be affected. The petitioner has approached this Court with a delay
of more than seven months and the Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed on
the ground of laches. Clause 2 and 3 in the advertisement cannot be challenged,
as the employer is the best person to decide, especially when they are supposed to
have strong reasons in selecting suitable persons for the post. This Court find no
merit in the Writ Petition.
12.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 28.09.2021
Internet : Yes
tmg/cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
tmg/cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.17564 of 2021
28.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
