[ad_1]
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to simply accept the rivalry that overqualification can’t be a floor for disqualification because it upheld an order of the Punjab National Bank terminating the service of a peon who had suppressed the truth that he was a graduate.
The high courtroom put aside two orders of the Orissa High Court by which it had requested the financial institution to permit the peon to discharge his service, saying “a candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim the right to continuance in service”.
A bench of justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah allowed the attraction filed by the financial institution, noting that it had acknowledged in its job commercial that the applicant shouldn’t be a graduate.
The courtroom additionally noticed that as an alternative of difficult the qualification standards, Amit Kumar Das had utilized for the job and hidden his qualification.
On the bottom that Mr Das “deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was 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”, the courtroom stated.
Referring to an earlier verdict of the highest courtroom, the bench stated that the suppression of fabric data and making a false assertion have a transparent bearing on the character and antecedents of the worker in relation to his continuance in service.
It stated, “An employee is expected to give correct information as to his qualification. The original writ petitioner failed to do so. He was, in fact, overqualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job”.
The high courtroom stated that one other righteous candidate has suffered resulting from this mischievous act by Mr Das.
Mr Das relied on the highest courtroom’s verdict of 2000 and stated {that a} increased qualification can’t be a floor for his disqualification from the job as rightly held by the Orissa High Court.
The bench famous that the Bank has invited the purposes for the submit of peon by giving a newspaper commercial through which it was particularly talked about {that a} candidate ought to have handed 12th class or its equal with primary studying/writing information of English and shouldn’t be a graduate as on January 1, 2016.
It stated that as per the eligibility standards talked about within the commercial, a candidate with a graduate diploma was not eligible even to use.
The bench stated that Das utilized for the submit of peon however in his utility/bio-data didn’t disclose that he was a graduate diploma holder since 2014 and solely talked about his qualification as 12th go.
It stated wanting on the nature of the submit of peon, a aware resolution was taken by the financial institution offering eligibility standards/instructional qualification {that a} graduate candidate shall not be eligible for the submit of peon/subordinate employees.
The high courtroom stated that Das by no means challenged the eligibility standards/instructional qualification talked about within the commercial and as an alternative participated within the recruitment course of.
“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 mentioned in the advertisement,” it stated.
The high courtroom acknowledged that it’s for the employer to find out and resolve the relevancy and suitability of the {qualifications} for any submit and it isn’t for the courts to think about and assess.
“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 preserving in view the necessity and curiosity of an establishment or an business or an institution because the case could also be. The courts usually are not match devices to evaluate expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of {qualifications},” it said.
The bench, however, said that at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for the posts.
“Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to permit the respondent unique writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a peon, although he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility standards/instructional qualification talked about within the commercial,” it said.
It noted that Das in his bio-data did not mention that he was a graduate and “very cleverly” he suppressed the material fact and declared his qualification as Higher Secondary School Certificate (HSC), whereas as he was holding a degree in the Bachelor in Arts.
“Had it been recognized to the financial institution that he was a graduate, he wouldn’t have in any respect been thought of for choice as a Peon within the financial institution. That thereafter when scrutiny of the paperwork was occurring and when the respondent – unique writ petitioner produced a commencement certificates, at the moment, the financial institution got here to know that he was a graduate and subsequently not eligible,” it stated.
The high courtroom stated that subsequently the financial institution rightly cancelled his candidature and he was not allowed to hitch the financial institution within the subordinate cadre.
The courtroom stated it was not imposing prices on Das although his mischievous act had disadvantaged one other candidate of the job.
[ad_2]
Source