CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.V. ANIT KUMAR DASversusANIT KUMAR DAS

                         [2020] 9 S.C.R. 925                             925


   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.                            A
                                  v.
                       ANIT KUMAR DAS
                   (Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020)
                       NOVEMBER 03, 2020                                 B
      [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                 M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
      Service Law:
       Appointment/ Selection – To the post of Peon in Bank –            C
Entitlement – Eligibility criteria for the post as per the circulars
issued by the Bank was 12th class pass – It was specifically mentioned
in the advertisement that the candidate should not be graduate –
Respondent-candidate mentioned his qualification as 12th pass –
Appointment letter issued – During scrutiny it was found by Bank
                                                                         D
that the candidate was graduate and hence not eligible for the post
– Candidature cancelled – Writ Petition – Single Judge of High
Court directed the Bank to allow the candidate to discharge his
duties as peon as per the appointment order – In writ appeal, Division
Bench of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge – Appeal
to Supreme Court – Held: A conscious decision was taken by Bank          E
providing eligibility criteria/ educational qualification – It is for
the employer to determine the relevance and suitability of the
qualification for any post – Courts are not fit instruments to assess
the expediency/ advisability/ utility of such prescription of
qualifications – The candidate having not challenged the eligibility
                                                                         F
criteria/ educational qualification in the advertisement and having
participated in the recruitment process, it is not open for him to
contend that higher qualification cannot be a disqualification –
The candidate cannot claim right to appointment having suppressed
the material information and/ or giving false information – Impugned
order is therefore set aside.                                            G
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. The appointments to the post of subordinate staff/
Peons were required to be made strictly in accordance with the
eligibility criteria mentioned in the Circular letter No. 25 of 2008
                                                                         H
                                 925
926            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     dated 06.11.2008 and the selection of the Peons was required to
      be made as per Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.3.2016.
      [Para 5.1][934-C-D]
            2. In the advertisement itself, it was specifically mentioned
      that a candidate should have passed 12th class or its equivalent
B     with basic reading/writing knowledge of English and should not
      be a graduate as on 01.01.2016. The original writ petitioner never
      challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification
      mentioned in the advertisement. He participated in the
      recruitment process on the basis of the advertisement, without
      challenging the eligibility criteria/educational qualification
C     mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, once having
      participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement,
      thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of
      higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and that too when
      he never challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification
D     mentioned in the advertisement. [Paras 5 and 6][933-G;
      935-F-H]
             3. A conscious decision was taken by the bank providing
      eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate
      candidate shall not be eligible for the post of Peon/subordinate
E     staff, looking to the nature of the post. Recruitment to public
      service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of
      advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from
      the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many
      others who could have competed for the post. [Paras 6 and
      7.1][935-F; 936-B-C]
F
            Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3
            SCC 548 : [2003] 2 SCR 662 – relied on.
            4. It is for the employer to determine and decide the
      relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is
G     not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is
      permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe
      qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it.
      Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and
      interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as
      the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess
H
  CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                          927
                ANIT KUMAR DAS

expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of            A
qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot
act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts.
In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and
the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and it is
                                                                         B
a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since
2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing
the appellant-Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner
to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not
eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification
mentioned in the advertisement. [Para 7.3][939-D-G]                      C
      J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
      (1990) 1 SCC 288; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz
      Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14 SCR 1082 –
      relied on.
      Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)              D
      15 SCC 596; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC
      170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819 – referred to.
       5. In the application/bio-data, the respondent-original writ
petitioner did not mention that he was a graduate. He suppressed
                                                                         E
the material fact and declared his qualification as H.S.C. 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.
In fact, by such conduct on the part of the respondent –original
writ petitioner, one another righteous candidate has suffered for        F
his mischievous act. Had it been known to the bank that he was
a graduate, he would not have at all been considered for selection
as a Peon in the bank. A candidate having suppressed the material
information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to
continuance in service. Thus, on the ground of suppression of
                                                                         G
material information and the facts and as the respondent – original
writ petitioner even otherwise was not eligible as per the eligibility
criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement
which was as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008.
The bank rightly cancelled his candidature and rightly did not
                                                                         H
928            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     permit him to resume his duty. The High Court ought not to have
      allowed the writ petition when it was a clear case of suppression
      of material fact by the original writ petitioner. [Para 8][940-A-F]

            Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav
            (2003) 3 SCC 437 : [2003] 2 SCR 361 - relied on.
B
            State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar (2017) 8 SCC 608
            – referred to.

             6. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Division
      Bench of the High Court and the judgment and order passed by
C
      the Single Judge of the High Court directing the appellant Bank
      to allow the respondent – original writ petitioner to discharge his
      duties as a Peon as per appointment order is unsustainable and
      deserves to quashed and set aside. [Para 10][941-A-B]

D                           Case Law Reference

      (2017) 8 SCC 608               referred to             Para 3.4

      (1990) 1 SCC 288               relied on               Para 7

E     [2003] 2 SCR 662               relied on               Para 7.1

      [2018] 14 SCR 1082             relied on               Para 7.2

      (2010) 15 SCC 596              referred to             Para 7.2

F     [2014] 14 SCR 819              referred to             Para 7.2

      [2003] 2 SCR 361               relied on               Para 8

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3602
      of 2020.
G
            From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2019.

            Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, Abhinav Agrawal,
      Rajesh Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
H
   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                                  929
                 ANIT KUMAR DAS

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 A
       M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Leave granted.
       Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High               B
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2019, by which the
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by
the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order dated
13.03.2019 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in W.P.
(C) No. 19261 of 2016, by which the learned single Judge allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and directed the            C
appellant Bank to allow the respondent herein – original writ petitioner
to discharge his duties as a Peon as per the appointment order dated
03.10.2016, the employer – Punjab National Bank has preferred the
present appeal.
       2. Applications were invited by the appellant Bank for the post of         D
Peon by publishing an advertisement in the local newspaper. The eligibility
criteria mentioned in the said advertisement was that a candidate should
have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading/writing
knowledge of English. It specifically provided that a candidate should
not be a Graduate as on 01.01.2016. A candidate was also required to              E
submit the bio-data as per the prescribed format. The respondent herein,
though a Graduate, applied for the said post. However, neither in the
application nor in the bio-data, he disclosed that he was a graduate. At
this stage, it required to be noted that the eligibility criteria and the
educational qualification prescribed above was as per the Circular Letter
No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008 issued by the Human Resources                     F
Development Division (for short “HRD Division”) of the Bank specifying
the guidelines for recruitment of staff in subordinate cadre in the bank
and prescribing the eligibility criteria. That on the basis of the information
provided by the applicants in their applications, a list of eligible candidates
was prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in 10th Class and 12th            G
Class. As per Circular dated 04.03.2016 issued by the HRD Division of
the Bank, the selection of the peons was required to be made on the
basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10th
standard and 12th standard. That so far as the respondent herein – original
writ petitioner is concerned, based on the information provided by him in
                                                                                  H
930             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     his application, his name appeared in the selected candidates of Balsar
      District. That an order of appointment was issued. It appears that while
      scrutiny of the documents was going on, the appellant Bank came to
      know about a graduate certificate showing that the respondent – original
      writ petitioner was a graduate since 2014. Thus, it was noticed and
      found that he was not eligible as per the advertisement and the Circulars
B
      and that the respondent deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed
      the fact that he was a graduate. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled
      and he was not allowed to join the bank in subordinate cadre. That,
      thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition before the High Court,
      being Writ Petition (C) No. 19261 of 2016, for an appropriate order to
C     allow him to discharge his duties as Peon as per the appointment order
      dated 03.10.2016 and to further direct that his appointment may not be
      cancelled on the ground that he has possessed higher qualification. That
      the said petition was opposed by the bank by filing a detailed affidavit-
      in-reply. It was specifically pointed out that the eligibility criteria and the
      educational qualification was fixed as per the Circular letter No. 25 of
D
      2008 dated 06.11.2008 issued by the HRD Division of the Bank. It was
      also pointed out that on 04.03.2016 the HRD Division issued another
      Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 pursuant to the decision of the Bank’s
      Board in their meeting dated 29.02.2016, by which it was decided that
      the selection of the Peons will be made on the basis of the percentage of
E     marks obtained by the candidates in 10th standard and 12th standard. It
      was also submitted that the respondent deliberately, wilfully and
      intentionally suppressed the material fact that he was a graduate. It was
      pointed out that had it been known to the bank that he was a graduate,
      he would not have at all been considered for selection as a peon in the
      bank. Despite the above, the learned single Judge of the High Court
F
      allowed the said writ petition solely relying upon the decision of the
      Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 69034 of 2019 [Pankaj
      Kumar Dubey v. Punjab National Bank], in which the Allahabad High
      Court referring to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil
      Appeal No. 1010 of 2000 dated 11.02.2000 [Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani
G     v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur) held that a candidate cannot
      be denied the appointment solely on the ground that he is possessing a
      higher qualification. The learned single Judge directed the bank to allow
      the respondent herein to discharge his duties as a Peon as per the
      appointment order dated 03.10.2016.
H
   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                                  931
           ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order         A
passed by the learned single Judge allowing the aforesaid writ petition
and directing the bank to allow the respondent –original writ petitioner to
discharge his duties as a Peon as per the appointment order dated
03.10.2016, the appellant Bank preferred the writ appeal before the
Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order,
                                                                                  B
which as such is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, the Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal and has not interfered
with the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence,
the present appeal.
       3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case,             C
more particularly, when in the advertisement it was specifically mentioned
that a candidate should not be a graduate as on 01.01.2016 and that it
specifically provided that a candidate should have passed 12th class or
its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English and the
educational qualification/eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement     D
was as per Circulars dated 06.11.2008 and 04.03.2016 issued by the
HRD Division of the Bank and admittedly the respondent – original writ
petitioner was a graduate as on 01.01.2016 and therefore not eligible
even to apply, both, the learned single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court have materially erred in directing the appellant
Bank to allow the original writ petitioner to perform his duties as a Peon        E
pursuant to the appointment order dated 03.10.2016.
        3.1 It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant Bank that in
the present case the original writ petitioner did not challenge the eligibility
criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. He
never challenged the circular prescribing the educational qualification/          F
eligibility criteria. It is submitted that once having not challenged the
eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement,
and thereafter having participated in the recruitment process, it is not
open for him to contend that he cannot be denied appointment on the
ground of having higher qualification.                                            G
      3.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant Bank that the High Court has clearly erred in
relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court, in which the
decision of this Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) was relied
upon. It is submitted that in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani                 H
932             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     (supra) this Court has specifically stated in Para 21 that the said decision
      is on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying
      down a rule of universal application.
             3.3 It is submitted that even otherwise it is required to be noted
      that the said Circulars dated 06.11.2008 and 04.03.2016 were issued
B     prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification on the basis of
      the decision approved by the Board of the Bank and considering the
      nature of the post – Peon/subordinate cadre and a conscious decision
      was taken by the bank that a candidate having the qualification of
      graduation shall not be eligible and the candidate who passed in 12th
      standard or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English
C     shall only be eligible. It is submitted therefore apart from the fact that
      the original writ petitioner did not challenge the eligibility criteria/
      educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement, once a conscious
      decision was taken by the employer – bank prescribing a specific
      qualification, thereafter unless it is found to be most arbitrary, the same
D     cannot be the subject-matter of a judicial review. Reliance is placed on
      the decisions of this Court in the cases of J. Rangaswamy v.
      Government of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 1 SCC 288, Yogesh Kumar
      v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548 and a recent decision
      of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad
      (2019) 2 SCC 404.
E
             3.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the appellant Bank that even otherwise on the ground that the
      respondent – original writ petitioner deliberately and willfully suppressed
      the material fact of having been graduate and did not disclose the same
      even in the bio-data which was required to be submitted in the prescribed
F     form, the High Court has materially erred in directing the appellant Bank
      to allow the respondent – original writ petitioner to perform his duties as
      a Peon as per the appointment order dated 03.10.2016 which, as such,
      was already cancelled. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court
      in the cases of State of Orissa v. Bibhisan Kanhar (2017) 8 SCC 608
G     and in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan
      Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437. It is submitted that had it been known to the
      bank that he was a graduate, he would not have at all been considered
      for selection as a Peon in the bank. It is submitted that based on the bio-
      data and the application submitted by him, in which he gave the particulars
      of having passed 12th standard, his candidature was accepted. It is
H
   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                                  933
           ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

submitted that before he was permitted to resume/join the duty, the bank          A
came to know that he was a graduate since 2014 and therefore was not
eligible at all and thereafter his candidature was cancelled and he was
not allowed to join the duty. It is submitted that therefore the High Court
has erred in directing the appellant bank to allow the respondent – original
writ petitioner to discharge his duties as Peon as per the appointment
                                                                                  B
order dated 03.10.2016.
        4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent – original writ petitioner. It is
vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent – original writ petitioner
that as rightly held by the High Court relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) and the decision             C
of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Dubey
(supra), the higher qualification cannot be a disqualification. It is submitted
that in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra), this Court has
deprecated the criteria of maximum qualification for the post of Peon.
It is submitted that therefore, as such, the High Court has not committed         D
any error in directing the appellant Bank to permit the respondent –
original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon pursuant to the
appointment order dated 03.10.2016. It is submitted that the appointment
of respondent – original writ petitioner was cancelled mainly/solely on
the ground that he was having a higher qualification. It is submitted that
in the present case the eligibility criteria/educational qualification            E
mentioned in the advertisement was 12th standard and cannot be said to
be a maximum educational qualification and therefore merely because
the respondent-original writ petitioner was having a higher qualification
than 12th standard, his candidature could not have been cancelled.
      4.1 Making the above submission it is prayed to dismiss the present         F
appeal.
       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          G
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 eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement, a
candidate who was having qualification of graduate was not eligible even
to apply. From the counter filed on behalf of the Bank before the High            H
934             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     Court, it appears that the educational qualification mentioned in the
      advertisement was as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008
      issued by the HRD Division of the bank. The relevant portion of the
      Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008 reads as under:
            “Age Minimum – 18 years
B           Maximum – 24 years with applicable relaxations.
            Education: Pass in 12th Standard or its equivalent with basic
            reading/writing knowledge of English (Graduates are not eligible)”
             5.1 It appears that thereafter on 04.03.2016 the HRD Division of
C     the Bank issued another Circular Letter No. 6 of 2016 indicating therein
      that the process of conducting interviews for recruitment of posts in
      subordinate cadre has since been discontinued, the Bank’s Board in its
      meeting 29.02.2016 has approved an alternative mechanism in lieu of
      interviews for recruitment of Peons in subordinate cadre selection on
      the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10th
D     standard and 12th standard. Therefore, the appointments to the post of
      subordinate staff/Peons were required to be made strictly in accordance
      with the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Circular letter No. 25 of 2008
      dated 06.11.2008 and the selection of the Peons was required to be
      made as per Circular letter No. 6 of 2016 dated 04.3.2016.
E            5.2 It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said advertisement,
      respondent herein – original writ petitioner applied for the post of Peon.
      However, in the application/bio-data, he did not disclose that he is a
      graduate from 2014. He only mentioned his qualification as 12 th pass.
      On the basis of the information provided by him in his application, his
F     application was entertained and he was selected on the basis of the
      marks obtained in 10th class and 12th class. Therefore, the respondent –
      original writ petitioner deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed
      the fact that he was a graduate. Had it been known to the bank that he
      was a graduate, he would not have at all been considered for selection
      as a Peon in the bank. That thereafter and before the original writ
G     petitioner was permitted to resume his duty pursuant to the appointment
      order dated 03.10.2016, the bank came to know that he was a graduate.
      That thereafter when scrutiny of the document was going on, the original
      writ petitioner produced the graduate certification showing that he was
      a graduate since 2014, the bank found that he was not eligible as he did
      not fulfill the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, and that he
H
   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                                  935
           ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

suppressed the material fact that he was a graduate, his candidature              A
came to be cancelled and he was not allowed to join the bank in the
subordinate cadre/Peon.
       5.3 The learned Single Judge of the High Court by the judgment
and order allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and
directed the appellant Bank to allow the original writ petitioner to discharge    B
his duties as a Peon as per appointment order dated 03.10.2016 on the
ground that as held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj
Kumar Dubey (supra), in which the decision of this Court in the case of
Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) was relied upon, the higher
qualification cannot be the qualification for the post of Peon. Decision of
the learned Single Judge has been continuing by the Division Bench by             C
impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order. Therefore, the short
question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case and despite the fact that there was
suppression of the material fact by the respondent – original writ petitioner
in not disclosing in the application/bio-data that he was a graduate, the         D
High Court is justified in directing the appellant Bank to allow the
respondent – original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon as
per appointment order dated 03.10.2016 which, as such, was cancelled?
        6. It is required to be noted that the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification mentioned in the advertisement inviting the applications was        E
as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008, the relevant
portion of which is reproduced hereinabove. As stated in the counter to
the writ petition, a conscious decision was taken by the bank providing
eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall
not be eligible for the post of Peon/subordinate staff. The said decision
was taken consciously looking to the nature of the post. At this stage, it        F
is required to be noted that the original writ petitioner never challenged
the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the
advertisement. He participated in the recruitment process on the basis
of the advertisement, without challenging the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, once having              G
participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement,
thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of higher
qualification cannot be a disqualification and that too when he never
challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in
the advertisement.
                                                                                  H
936             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A             7. Even otherwise, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational
      qualification that a graduate shall not be eligible to apply was a conscious
      decision taken by the Bank and the same was as per the Circular letter
      No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008. In the case of J. Rangaswamy (supra),
      it is observed and held by this Court that it is not for the court to consider
      the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts.
B
             7.1 In the case of Yogesh Kumar (supra), 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 recruitment rules,
      if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and
      deprives many others who could have competed for the post.
C
             7.2 In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad
      Rather (supra), this Court has distinguished another decision of this Court
      in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
      15 SCC 596 taking the view that in a case where lower qualification is
      prescribed, if a person has acquired higher qualifications, such qualification
D     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 (2015) 2 SCC 170, in which case, this Court on facts distinguished
      the decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra). While distinguishing the
E     decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra), it is observed in paras 25 and
      26 as under:
                    “25. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
             Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
             (L&S) 664] has been considered in a judgment of two learned
F            Judges in State of Punjab v. Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita,
             (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . In that case,
             applications were invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under
             the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included
             a Matric with a two years’ course in JBT training and knowledge
             of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent.
G            This Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed
             qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a
             “higher qualification”. Adverting to the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
             K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
             : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] , this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii)
H            in that case clearly stipulated that the possession of a higher
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                              937
        ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

  qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification    A
  prescribed for the post. In the absence of such a stipulation, it
  was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced: (Anita
  case [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1
  SCC (L&S) 329] , SCC p. 177, para 15)
         “15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid   B
  observations, that since the private respondents possess higher
  qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be
  treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts
  of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the
  aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private
  respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into           C
  consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid
  observations inJyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public
  Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
  664] , permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the
  decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents,   D
  is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6)
            ‘6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
            10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these
     Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by
     executive orders or Standing Orders of Government as                  E
     equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special
     Rules [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been
     emphasised in original.] and such of those higher
     qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the
     lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be             F
     sufficient for the post.’
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
  A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of
  higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the
  lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the             G
  present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory
  provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher
  qualifications.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
                                                                           H
938      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A            26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation
      which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
      K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
      : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision
      in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1
      SCC (L&S) 329]. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
B
      Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
      (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent
      such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that
      a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of
      another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications
C     for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the
      employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition
      of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review
      to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly,
      equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be
      determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a
D
      particular qualification should or should not be regarded as
      equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to
      determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
      Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
      (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the
E     holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition
      of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present
      case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this
      view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
      Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-
      2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the
F
      judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC
      OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to
      the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed
      qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz
      Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
G     decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.”
      That thereafter it is observed in para 27 as under:
            27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State,
      as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features
      including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the
H
   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                                   939
           ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification         A
       and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the
       acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the
       authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of
       administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative
       decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take
                                                                                   B
       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. That is why
       the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
       Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664]
       must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under        C
       which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the
       acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient
       for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision
       in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
       (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned.
                                                                                   D
        7.3 Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for
the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of
the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and
assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to
prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it.
Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an          E
Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The
Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or
utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time,
the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications
for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational   F
qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the
candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and as observed
hereinabove, it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in
force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing
the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to
discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per          G
the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the
advertisement.
      8. Even on the ground that respondent – original writ petitioner
deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a
                                                                                   H
940             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     graduate, the High Court has erred in directing the appellant Bank to
      allow the respondent – original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as
      a Peon. In the application/bio-data, the respondent-original writ petitioner
      did not mention that he was a graduate. Very cleverly he suppressed the
      material fact and declared his qualification as H.S.C., whereas as a
      matter of fact, he was holding a degree in the Bachelor in Arts. Had it
B
      been known to the bank that he was a graduate, he would not have at all
      been considered for selection as a Peon in the bank. That thereafter
      when scrutiny of the documents was going on and when the respondent
      – original writ petitioner produced a graduation certificate, at that time,
      the bank came to know that he was a graduate and therefore not eligible
C     and therefore the bank rightly cancelled his candidature and he was not
      allowed to join the bank in the subordinate cadre. Therefore, on the
      aforesaid ground alone, the High Court ought not to have allowed the
      writ petition when it was a clear case of suppression of material fact by
      the original writ petitioner. An employee is expected to give a correct
      information as to his qualification. The original writ petitioner failed to do
D
      so. He was in fact over-qualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the
      job. In fact, by such conduct on the part of the respondent –original writ
      petitioner, one another righteous candidate has suffered for his
      mischievous act. As held by this Court in the case of Ram Ratan Yadav
      (supra), suppression of material information and making a false statement
E     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 and/or giving false information cannot claim right to
      continuance in service. Thus, on the ground of suppression of material
      information and the facts and as the respondent – original writ petitioner
      even otherwise was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational
F
      qualification mentioned in the advertisement which was as per Circular
      letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008, the bank rightly cancelled his
      candidature and rightly did not permit him to resume his duty.
             9. On reading the judgment and order passed by the learned single
      Judge it appears that the learned single Judge has not at all considered
G     the aforesaid aspect of suppression of material fact and information.
      So far as the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High
      Court, as such it is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, without even
      stating any facts.

H
   CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. v.                                941
           ANIT KUMAR DAS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       10. In view of the above and for the reasons state above, the            A
impugned order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned single
Judge of the High Court dated 13.03.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 19261 of
2016 directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent – original writ
petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon as per appointment order
                                                                                B
dated 03.11.2016 is unsustainable and deserves to quashed and set aside
and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed.
However, considering the fact that the post in question was a subordinate
staff post/Peon, and despite the fact that because of the mischievous
act on the part of the original writ petitioner, one candidate could not get
the job, we refrain from imposing the cost and leave the matter there.          C


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                            Appeal allowed



                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H