Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 4 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154407
CWP-6167-2018 1 2023:PHHC:154407
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6167-2018
Date of Decision:04.12.2023
SUKHWINDER SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate with
Ms. Preeti Grover, Advocate and
Mr. Akash Soni, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated
16.03.2015 whereby appointment letter issued to the petitioner has been
cancelled.
2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 05.01.2015
applied for the post of Peon. The said advertisement was published in the
newspaper dated 06.01.2015. The petitioner applied on compassionate
ground. The maximum qualification prescribed was 10th whereas
petitioner was 10+2 pass. The petitioner was issued appointment letter
dated 09.03.2015 which on verification of documents was cancelled vide
communication dated 16.03.2015 on the ground that he is 10+2 pass
whereas maximum qualification for the post of Peon is 10th pass.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154407
CWP-6167-2018 2 2023:PHHC:154407
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon judgment of
Supreme Court in Mohd. Raizul Usman Gani & others Vs. District &
Sessions Judge, Nagpur & others (2000) 2 SCC 606 and Life Insurance
Corporation of India & others Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra (2014) 10
SCC 346 submits that higher qualification cannot be disqualification. The
petitioner was possessing qualification of graduation in arts and
maximum prescribed qualification was 10+2. In view of judgments of
Supreme Court, the appointment letter of the petitioner has been wrongly
cancelled.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
Supreme Court in Chief Manager, PNB Versus Anit Kumar Dass (2021)
12 SCC 80 and a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Bank of
Commerce and others Vs. Ram Kumar 2015 SCC Online P&H 6539,
after noticing judgments cited by petitioner have held that where
maximum qualification is prescribed and there is concealment of facts on
the part of an applicant, the appointing authority has right to dismiss the
candidate.
5. On being confronted with afore-cited judgments, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of order dated 16.11.2019
passed by this Court in Rajpal Vs. Punjab National Bank and others in
CWP No.25412 of 2019, it may be made clear that removal of the
petitioner shall not be taken as stigmatic and will not come in his way of
applying and getting job anywhere else.
6. In the wake of statement made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the present petition stands disposed of with an observation on
the ground of equity that removal of the petitioner shall not be taken as
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154407
CWP-6167-2018 3 2023:PHHC:154407
stigmatic and will not come in his way of applying and getting job
anywhere else.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
04.12.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154407
3 of 3
