Supreme Court Settles Eligibility Criteria for Peon Posts: Punjab National Bank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2020)

Date of the Judgment: November 3, 2020
Citation: [2020] INSC 687
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M. R. Shah, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a bank reject a candidate for a subordinate staff position (Peon) simply because the candidate holds a graduate degree, when the job advertisement specifically stated that graduates were ineligible? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether a candidate’s higher qualification and the suppression of such information during the application process justified the cancellation of their appointment. This case explores the boundaries of employer discretion in setting eligibility criteria and the consequences of providing false information during recruitment.

Case Background

The Punjab National Bank (appellant) advertised for the position of Peon, specifying that applicants should have passed the 12th standard or its equivalent with basic English reading/writing skills, and crucially, should not be a graduate as of January 1, 2016. Anit Kumar Das (respondent), despite being a graduate since 2014, applied for the position without disclosing his graduation status in his application or bio-data. The bank, following its HRD Division guidelines, had set the eligibility criteria to exclude graduates for subordinate cadre positions. Based on the marks obtained in 10th and 12th standards, the respondent was initially selected and received an appointment order on October 3, 2016. However, during document verification, the bank discovered that the respondent was a graduate. Consequently, his candidature was canceled, and he was not allowed to join. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking to be allowed to join his duties as a Peon.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, seeking to be allowed to join his duties as a Peon. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Pankaj Kumar Dubey v. Punjab National Bank, which cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, stating that a candidate cannot be denied appointment solely for possessing a higher qualification. The single judge directed the bank to allow the respondent to join his duties as a Peon. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the bank’s appeal, confirming the single judge’s order without providing detailed reasoning.

Legal Framework

The eligibility criteria for the post of Peon were based on Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008, issued by the HRD Division of the Punjab National Bank. This circular stated that candidates must have passed the 12th standard or its equivalent with basic English reading/writing skills, and specifically mentioned that “Graduates are not eligible.” Further, Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.03.2016, specified that selection would be based on the percentage of marks obtained in the 10th and 12th standards, discontinuing the interview process. The bank’s decision to exclude graduates was a conscious policy decision based on the nature of the post.

Arguments

Appellant (Punjab National Bank) Arguments:

• The bank argued that the respondent was not eligible as per the advertisement and the bank’s circulars, which clearly stated that graduates were not eligible for the post of Peon.
• The respondent did not challenge the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement and having participated in the recruitment process, he cannot now claim that he cannot be denied appointment on the ground of having higher qualification.
• The bank relied on the Supreme Court’s observation in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur that the decision in that case was specific to its facts and not a rule of universal application.
• The eligibility criteria were based on a conscious decision by the bank’s board, considering the nature of the post. The bank cited J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad to support their claim that the employer has the right to set qualifications.
• The respondent deliberately suppressed the fact that he was a graduate. The bank cited State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav to argue that suppression of material facts is a valid ground for cancellation of candidature.

Respondent (Anit Kumar Das) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that a higher qualification cannot be a disqualification, relying on Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Pankaj Kumar Dubey v. Punjab National Bank.
• The respondent contended that the eligibility criteria was 12th standard, and cannot be said to be a maximum educational qualification, and therefore, merely because he was having a higher qualification, his candidature could not have been cancelled.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and despite the fact that there was suppression of the material fact by the respondent in not disclosing in the application/bio-data that he was a graduate, the High Court is justified in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent to discharge his duties as a Peon as per appointment order dated 03.10.2016 which, as such, was cancelled?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases:

• J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1990] 1 SCC 288 – The Supreme Court held that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts.
• Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2003] 3 SCC 548 – The Supreme Court held that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules.
• Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad [2019] 2 SCC 404 – The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, emphasizing that a higher qualification does not necessarily presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification unless there is a specific rule to that effect.
• State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar [2017] 8 SCC 608 – The Supreme Court held that suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee.
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [2003] 3 SCC 437 – The Supreme Court held that a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim a right to continuance in service.
• Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur (Civil Appeal No. 1010 of 2000) – The Supreme Court clarified that its decision in that case was specific to its facts and should not be considered a rule of universal application.
• Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2010] 15 SCC 596 – The Supreme Court held that possession of a higher qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post if there is a rule to that effect.
• State of Punjab v. Anita [2015] 2 SCC 170 – The Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, holding that in the absence of a specific rule, a higher qualification cannot be deemed to include a lower qualification.

Legal Provisions:

• Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008, issued by the HRD Division of Punjab National Bank – This circular specified the eligibility criteria for the post of Peon, stating that graduates are not eligible.
• Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.03.2016, issued by the HRD Division of Punjab National Bank – This circular specified that selection would be based on the percentage of marks obtained in the 10th and 12th standards, discontinuing the interview process.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, clarifying that its decision was specific to the facts of that case and not a rule of universal application.
• The Court followed J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, holding that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts.
• The Court followed Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, stating that recruitment should be strictly as per the advertisement and rules.
• The Court followed Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, emphasizing that a higher qualification does not necessarily presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification unless there is a specific rule to that effect.
• The Court followed State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar, holding that suppression of material information is a valid ground for cancellation of candidature.
• The Court followed Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, stating that a candidate who suppresses material information cannot claim a right to continuance in service.
• The Court distinguished Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, stating that the case turned on a specific statutory rule that allowed higher qualifications to presuppose lower qualifications, and in the absence of such a rule, this cannot be inferred.
• The Court followed State of Punjab v. Anita, stating that in the absence of a specific rule, a higher qualification cannot be deemed to include a lower qualification.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The respondent’s ineligibility as per the advertisement and bank circulars.
• The respondent’s suppression of the fact that he was a graduate.
• The employer’s right to set qualifications based on the nature of the job.
• The principle that a higher qualification does not automatically make a candidate eligible if the employer has set specific criteria.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects included the respondent’s ineligibility and suppression of information, while the legal considerations involved the interpretation of rules and precedents regarding employer’s rights and eligibility criteria.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments that a higher qualification cannot be a disqualification, but rejected it based on the specific facts of the case and the employer’s right to set qualifications. The Court also considered the argument that the respondent had suppressed the material fact of his graduation, which was a valid ground for cancellation of his candidature.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the employer has the right to set qualifications for a post based on the nature of the job and that the courts should not interfere with such decisions unless they are arbitrary or fanciful. The Court also highlighted that a candidate must provide correct information and not suppress any material facts, and that suppression of facts can lead to cancellation of candidature.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily.”
• “A candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continuance in service.”
• “An employee is expected to give a correct information as to his qualification. The original writ petitioner failed to do so. He was in fact over-qualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job.”

There were no dissenting opinions; the judgment was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Employers have the right to set specific eligibility criteria, including educational qualifications, for different posts based on the nature of the job.
• Candidates must provide correct information and not suppress any material facts in their applications.
• Suppression of material facts, such as possessing a higher qualification than required, can be a valid ground for cancellation of candidature.
• A higher qualification does not automatically make a candidate eligible if the employer has set specific criteria that exclude such candidates.
• Courts should not interfere with the employer’s decision to set qualifications unless it is arbitrary or fanciful.

This judgment reinforces the principle that employers have the autonomy to set job-specific qualifications and that candidates must be transparent in their applications. It also clarifies that higher qualifications do not automatically override specific eligibility criteria set by the employer.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, other than quashing the High Court’s order and setting aside the direction to allow the respondent to join as Peon.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employer has the right to set eligibility criteria for a post, including specifying that candidates with a higher qualification are not eligible, and that a candidate’s suppression of material information regarding their qualifications is a valid reason for cancellation of candidature. This decision clarifies that the principle that a higher qualification cannot be a disqualification is not a universal rule and depends on the specific facts and rules of each case. It reinforces the employer’s autonomy in setting job-specific qualifications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the respondent was ineligible for the post of Peon because he was a graduate, which was against the eligibility criteria set by the bank. The Court also emphasized that the respondent had suppressed the material fact of his graduation in his application, which was a valid ground for cancellation of his candidature. This judgment upholds the employer’s right to set specific qualifications for a post and the importance of transparency in the application process.