Employers cannot prescribe arbitrary qualifications for jobs: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in the matter of an employment dispute, observed that although employers have the authority to prescribe qualifications for a particular post, such qualifications should be given due consideration and should not be arbitrary. The bench consisting J. Ashok Bhushan, J. R Subhash Reddy and J. R Shah, in the matter of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank &amp; Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das [Civil Appeal No. 3602 of 2020], held that lower educational qualification can be a criteria for employment of a candidate, given that there is a rationale behind it.   The appellant Bank had invited applications for the post of Peon by publishing an advertisement in the local newspaper. The advertisement clearly mentioned the eligibility criteria for the candidate to have passed 12th class or its equivalent and basic reading/writing knowledge of English. It also specifically provided that the candidate should not be a graduate. The respondent, upon submitting the applications got selected for the employment, after which it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the respondent was in fact a graduate, and thus, his candidature was cancelled. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court arguing that higher education cannot be a basis for denying employment, relying on Mohd. Usmain Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur [Civil Appeal No. 1010 of 2000]. The HC allowed the petition and directed the Bank to allow the respondent to discharge his duties as a Peon. The present appeal arises out of this judgement, wherein the counsel for the appellant argued that firstly, the respondent never challenged the eligibility criteria, and further, he deliberately and willfully suppressed the material fact of having been a graduate. Further, that the criteria is decided keeping in mind the nature of the job, and that of the Peon does not require an employee with higher qualification than as prescribed. Hence, the Bank should not be ordered to appoint the respondent as a Peon.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Division dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has learned single Judge of the High Court in W.P.No. 19261 of 2016 by which the learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and directed the appellant Bank to allow the respondent herein original writ a candidate should not be a Graduate as on 01.01.2016. A candidate was also required to submit the bio­data as per the prescribed format. The respondent herein though a Graduate the bio­data he disclosed that he was a graduate. At this stage it of 2008 dated 06.11.2008 issued by the Human Resources Development Division of the Bank specifying the guidelines for recruitment of staff in subordinate the basis of the information provided by the applicants in their dated 04.03.2016 issued by the HRD Division of the Bank the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10th standard him in his application his name appeared in the selected candidates of Balsar District. That an order of appointment was showing that the respondent original writ petitioner was a respondent deliberately wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate. Therefore his candidature was cadre. That thereafter the respondent filed the writ petition before the High Court being Writ PetitionNo. 192616 for an has possessed higher qualification. That the said petition was specifically pointed out that the eligibility criteria and the the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10th standard and 12th standard. It was also submitted that the respondent deliberately wilfully and intentionally suppressed the Dubey v. Punjab National Bank] in which the Allahabad High Civil Appeal No. 1010 of 2000 dated 11.02.2000 8 SCC 608 the bank that he was a graduate he would not have at all been based on the bio­data and the application submitted by him in which he gave the particulars of having passed 12th standard his candidature was accepted. It is submitted that before he was join the duty. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has erred in directing the appellant bank to allow the respondent The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent original writ case of Pankaj Kumar Dubey the higher qualification cannot be a disqualification. It is submitted that in the case of criteria of maximum qualification for the post of Peon. It is submitted that therefore as such the High Court has not respondent original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a submitted that the appointment of respondent original writ case the eligibility criteria educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement was 12th standard and cannot be said to be a maximum educational qualification and therefore merely because the respondent­original writ petitioner was having a higher qualification than 12th standard his candidature could not have 4.1 Making the above submission it is prayed to dismiss the 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The appellant Bank invited the applications for the post Peon by giving an advertisement in the local newspaper. In the advertisement itself it was specifically mentioned that a candidate should have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading writing knowledge of English and should not be a graduate as on 01.01.2016. Thus as per the it appears that the educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement was as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated basic reading writing knowledge of English it is observed and held by this Court that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have 7.2 In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather this Court has distinguished another case where lower qualification is prescribed if a person has acquired higher qualifications such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the said decision this Court also took note of another decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Anita 2 SCC 170 in which case this Court on facts distinguished the decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. 664] has been considered in a judgment of two learned Judges in State of Punjab v. Anita3 SCC 664] this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii) in that case clearly stipulated that the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. In the absence of such a stipulation it was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced: 329] SCC p. 177 para 15 the aforesaid observations that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications then the having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents because the inJyoti K.K. casepermitted the aforesaid course. The statutory in these Rules or in the Special Rules the qualifications recognised by executive orders or higher qualifications which presuppose the A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the posts. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned there is no similar statutory provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher 26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission 15 SCC 596 : 3 SCC in the subsequent decision in Anita. The decision in Jyoti K.K.3 SCC 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher In this view of the matter the Division Bench No. 135 of 2017 decided on 12­10­2017 of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment No. 135 of 2017 decided on 12­10­2017 of the Division State as employer may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties the functionality of a qualification and the content of the assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration it is trite law fall within the domain of administrative decision­making. The State as a public societal structure. All these are essentially matters of decision in Jyoti K.K.15 SCC 596 : 3 SCC must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K.15 SCC 596 : 3 SCC suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuance in service. A candidate having suppressed the material information qualification mentioned in the advertisement which was as per On reading the judgment and order passed by the learned Bench of the High Court as such it is a non­speaking and In view of the above and for the reasons state above the single Judge of the High Court dated 13.03.2019 in W.P.No to quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed. However considering the fact that the fact that because of the mischievous act on the part of the original writ petitioner one candidate could not get the job we