A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court examined the legality of continuation in service of a candidate appointed as a Peon in Punjab National Bank despite being ineligible under the prescribed recruitment criteria. The Bank’s recruitment advertisement, issued pursuant to internal circulars, expressly disqualified graduates from applying for the post of Peon, limiting eligibility to candidates who had passed 12th Standard with basic English knowledge. The respondent, though a graduate since 2014, suppressed this material fact and declared only Higher Secondary qualification in his application. An appointment order was issued based on the disclosed qualifications, but during document verification, the Bank discovered the respondent’s graduation degree and cancelled his candidature.

The High Court, relying on precedents that discouraged disqualification on grounds of higher qualification, directed the Bank to permit the respondent to join duties. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that recruitment must strictly conform to the terms of the advertisement and applicable circulars. It reaffirmed that determination of eligibility criteria falls within the employer’s domain and courts cannot substitute their judgment unless the prescription is arbitrary. The Court further emphasized that suppression of material facts disentitles a candidate from equitable relief.

The judgment reinforces the principles of employer autonomy in recruitment policy, estoppel against candidates who participate without challenging eligibility conditions, and the legal consequences of misrepresentation in public employment.

Keywords: Recruitment Rules, Over-qualification, Suppression of Facts, Employer’s Discretion, Judicial Review

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by Punjab National Bank for appointment to the subordinate cadre post of Peon. The recruitment was governed by Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008 issued by the Human Resources Development Division, which expressly restricted eligibility to candidates who had passed 12th Standard, categorically excluding graduates. This exclusion was reaffirmed through Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016, which modified the selection procedure while retaining the eligibility framework.

The respondent applied for the post despite holding a graduation degree. In the application and biodata, he disclosed only his Higher Secondary qualification, concealing his graduate status. Based on this information, his candidature was processed and he was issued an appointment order. Before joining, however, the Bank discovered his graduation certificate during verification and cancelled the appointment on grounds of ineligibility and suppression of material facts.

The respondent challenged the cancellation before the Orissa High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, relying on earlier judicial pronouncements holding that higher qualification cannot operate as a disqualification. The Division Bench affirmed the decision without providing detailed reasoning.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to decide whether courts could override express eligibility conditions prescribed by an employer and whether a candidate who suppressed material facts could claim continuation in service. The case squarely involved the limits of judicial review in recruitment matters and the doctrine of fairness in public employment.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Punjab National Bank issued a recruitment advertisement inviting applications for the post of Peon. The advertisement explicitly stated that candidates must have passed 12th Standard and must not be graduates as on 01 January 2016. These conditions were derived from Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008, which governed recruitment to subordinate staff positions.

The respondent, a graduate since 2014, applied for the post. In the prescribed application form and biodata, he declared his qualification as 12th pass, deliberately omitting reference to his graduation degree. Based on the information provided, the Bank shortlisted candidates according to marks obtained in 10th and 12th standards, in line with Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016. The respondent’s name appeared in the select list and an appointment order dated 03 October 2016 was issued.

During scrutiny of documents prior to joining, the respondent produced a graduation certificate. Upon verification, the Bank concluded that he was ineligible ab initio and had suppressed material facts. Consequently, his candidature was cancelled and he was not permitted to join service.

Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court seeking enforcement of the appointment order. The Bank opposed the petition, emphasizing the binding nature of the eligibility criteria and the respondent’s misrepresentation. The Single Judge allowed the petition, relying on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which held that higher qualification cannot be a ground for disqualification. The Division Bench affirmed this decision.

The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in disregarding recruitment rules and ignoring suppression of material facts.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a candidate who possesses a qualification expressly disqualifying him under the recruitment advertisement can claim appointment?
ii. Whether suppression of material educational qualifications disentitles a candidate from public employment?
iii. Whether courts can interfere with eligibility criteria consciously prescribed by an employer?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant Bank submitted that the eligibility conditions were explicitly mentioned in the advertisement and derived from valid internal circulars. The respondent never challenged these conditions and voluntarily participated in the recruitment process. It was argued that once a candidate accepts the recruitment terms, he is estopped from questioning them later.

It was further contended that prescribing non-graduation as a condition was a conscious policy decision taken by the Bank’s Board, considering the nature of subordinate cadre work. Judicial review could not extend to assessing the advisability of such qualifications. Reliance was placed on Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The Bank emphasized that the respondent deliberately suppressed his graduation qualification. Such misrepresentation vitiates the entire selection process and disentitles him from equitable relief. The cancellation of candidature was therefore lawful and justified.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that possession of higher qualification should not disqualify a candidate where the minimum qualification is satisfied. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, where disqualification on grounds of higher qualification was deprecated.

It was argued that the eligibility condition did not prescribe a maximum qualification and hence could not exclude graduates. The respondent contended that cancellation of his appointment solely on the basis of higher qualification was arbitrary and violative of fairness principles.

The respondent sought continuation in service pursuant to the appointment order already issued in his favour.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench. The Court held that recruitment to public service must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement and governing rules. The eligibility condition excluding graduates was explicit, valid, and in force since 2008.

The Court observed that the respondent never challenged the eligibility criteria before participating in the recruitment process. Having accepted the terms, he could not later contend that higher qualification should not be a disqualification. The Court reiterated that determining suitability and relevance of qualifications lies within the employer’s domain and courts are ill-equipped to substitute such policy decisions.

The Court distinguished Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani, clarifying that it was decided on its peculiar facts and did not lay down a universal principle. Reliance was placed on Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad to reiterate that higher qualification cannot be presumed to include lower qualification in absence of statutory provision.

On suppression of facts, the Court held that the respondent deliberately misrepresented his educational qualifications. Suppression of material facts strikes at the root of trust in public employment. A candidate who secures appointment by misrepresentation cannot claim any legal or equitable right to continue in service.

Accordingly, the cancellation of candidature was upheld and the appeal was allowed.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment is that recruitment must be conducted strictly in accordance with eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement and governing rules. An employer has exclusive authority to determine qualifications relevant to a post, and courts cannot interfere unless such prescription is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Further, suppression or misrepresentation of material facts relating to eligibility disentitles a candidate from claiming appointment or continuation in service. Participation in a recruitment process without challenging eligibility conditions operates as estoppel against subsequent challenge.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that public employers may legitimately frame eligibility criteria keeping in mind administrative efficiency, job nature, and social considerations. Judicial review must tread cautiously in matters of recruitment policy, as courts lack institutional competence to assess such administrative expediency.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to advertised eligibility criteria.
ii. Candidates must disclose complete and truthful information in applications.
iii. Courts should not relax or reinterpret eligibility conditions absent arbitrariness.
iv. Suppression of material facts justifies cancellation of candidature at any stage.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces foundational principles of service jurisprudence by upholding employer autonomy in prescribing recruitment qualifications. It sends a clear message that judicial sympathy cannot override statutory or policy-based eligibility conditions. The Court’s emphasis on transparency and honesty in recruitment processes strengthens public confidence in employment systems.

The ruling also clarifies the limited scope of precedents discouraging disqualification on grounds of higher qualification. Such precedents cannot be mechanically applied where eligibility conditions are explicit. Importantly, the judgment underscores that suppression of facts is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive illegality affecting the integrity of public service.

For law students and practitioners, the case serves as a crucial authority on estoppel in recruitment matters, limits of judicial review, and consequences of misrepresentation in service law.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, [2003] 2 SCR 662

• J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1990) 1 SCC 288

• Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, [2018] 14 SCR 1082

• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, [2003] 2 SCR 361

b) Important Statutes / Instruments

• Recruitment Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008

• Recruitment Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016