Court overturned Orissa High Court orders asking the bank to allow the peon to perform his duties
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to accept the argument that overqualification cannot be grounds for disqualification because it upheld an order from the National Bank of the Punjab terminating the service of a peon which had removed the fact that ‘he was a graduate.
The high court overturned two orders from the High Court of Orissa asking the bank to allow the peon to perform his duties, claiming that “a candidate who removed material information and / or giving false information can not claim a service “.
A bench of Judges Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah allowed the appeal by the bank, noting that it had stated in its job offer that the applicant was not to be a graduate.
The court also observed that instead of challenging the qualifying criteria, Amit Kumar Das applied for the post and concealed his qualification.
On the ground that Mr. Das “willfully, willfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate, the High Court erred in ordering the appellant bank to allow the respondent – the applicant in the original writ – to s ‘discharge his duties as peon,’ the court said.
Referring to an earlier verdict from the higher court, the bench said that the removal of important information and misrepresentation has a clear bearing on the character and track record of the employee in relation to his continued service.
He said: “An employee is expected to give correct information as to his qualification. The first applicant failed to do so. He was, in fact, overqualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job ”.
The Supreme Court said another righteous candidate suffered as a result of Mr. Das’ malicious act.
Mr Das relied on the 2000 highest court verdict and said that a higher qualification cannot be grounds for his disqualification from employment as rightfully detained by the High Court of Orissa.
The bench noted that the Bank invited applications for the position of peon by giving an advertisement in the newspaper in which it was specifically mentioned that a candidate should have passed the 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading skills / writing in English and should not be a candidate. graduated on January 1, 2016.
According to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the ad, a candidate with a graduate degree was not even eligible to apply.
The bench said Das applied for the peon position, but in his application / biological data did not reveal that he had held a graduate degree since 2014 and only mentioned his qualification as 12th passage.
He said that looking at the nature of the peon position, a conscious decision had been made by the bank providing educational eligibility / qualification criteria that a graduate candidate would not be eligible for the staff / subordinate position.
The higher court said Das never challenged the eligibility criteria / educational qualification mentioned in the ad and instead participated in the recruitment process.
“Therefore, once he has participated in the recruitment process in accordance with the advertisement, it is no longer open to him to assert that the acquisition of a higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and this too when he never challenged the eligibility / degree criteria mentioned in the ad, “It said.
The higher court said that it is for the employer to determine and decide on the suitability and adequacy of qualifications for any job and that it is not for the courts to review and assess them.
“The courts give more leeway to the employer to prescribe qualifications for any position. There is a rationale for that.
“Qualifications are prescribed taking into account the need and interest of an institution or industry or establishment as the case may be. Courts are not appropriate instruments for assessing desirability or desirability. or the usefulness of such a qualification requirement, ”he said.
The judiciary, however, said that at the same time, the employer cannot act in an arbitrary or fanciful manner in prescribing the qualifications for the positions.
“Therefore, the High Court clearly erred in ordering the appellant bank to allow the applicant of the respondent’s initial writ to perform his duties as peon, even though he was not eligible as a that such according to the eligibility / degree criteria mentioned in the advertisement, “It said.
He noted that Das in his biography did not mention that he was a graduate and that he “very cleverly” removed the material fact and declared his upper secondary school certificate (HSC) diploma, while he held a bachelor’s degree. in arts.
“If the bank had known that he had graduated, he would not have been selected for selection as a Peon in the bank at all. That afterwards, when the document review was underway and the respondent – the applicant for the original writ produced a graduation certificate, at that time the bank learned that he was a graduate and therefore not eligible, ”he explains.
The higher court said that the bank had therefore rightly canceled his candidacy and that he was not allowed to join the bank in the subordinate framework.
The court said he was not imposing a fee on Das although his mischievous act deprived another candidate of the post.
