Allahabad High Court
Mushran vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242345 Court No. - 33 Reserved A.F.R. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19796 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mushran Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Jainendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. An advertisement was published by the Punjab National Bank on 18.11.2021, inviting applications for post of part-time sweepers in their establishment. The advertisement was published in newspapers. The petitioner applied for the post of a part-time sweeper and submitted his application form in the office of the Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur. After verification, the petitioner was selected for the post of a sweeper on 25.02.2022 and his name finds mention at Sr. No.5 in the select-list of candidates under the category of O.B.C. The Chief Manager of the Punjab Nation Bank last mentioned, respondent No.2, sent a letter for verification of the petitioner's documents on 30.03.2022. This letter required the petitioner to appear in the office of respondent No.2 on 06.04.2022 at about 10:30 in the morning hours. The petitioner appeared before the said respondent on 06.04.2022 for the verification of his documents. After all necessary verification was done, the respondent Bank issued appointment letters to other candidates, but not the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's case is that he had opened a bank account with another branch of the respondent Bank, where his date of birth mentioned is 20.05.1993. It was mentioned in his Aadhaar Card as well. The petitioner states that he had sought correction of his date of birth in the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card before making his application for employment with the Bank. The petitioner's case is that his date of birth, in fact, is 20.09.1994; not 20.05.1993. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to his transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, New Janta Public Junior High School, Village Nasarullapur, Deoband, Saharanpur. This document relates to the year 2008 when the petitioner passed his Class-VIII examination from the aforesaid institution. The certificate is countersigned by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur.
3. The petitioner, faced with inaction by the respondent Bank in issuing his appointment letter, approached this Court by means of Writ-A No.9832 of 2023, seeking a direction to the Bank to consider his case for appointment. This Court after noticing the discrepancy about the petitioner's date of birth in the Aadhaar Card and steps taken for its rectification, directed the respondent Bank to re-verify the entire documents relating to the petitioner and communicate the result to him. The last mentioned order was passed by this Court in Writ-A No.9832 of 2023 on 31.05.2023. A copy of the said order, along with all necessary documents, including his transfer certificate, was submitted by the petitioner in the office of respondent Bank on 17.06.2023. After a long lapse of time on 09.10.2023, the respondent Bank passed the order impugned of that date saying that his documents had been subjected to re-verification and it was observed that the petitioner had opened a current account in the name of M/s. Deepak Electronics, where his qualification mentioned in the KYC Form was 'graduate'. Since the maximum qualification for the post of a sweeper indicated in the advertisement was Class-X, the petitioner was ineligible for appointment as a part-time sweeper.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, this writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner.
5. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 called upon the Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur, the respondent, who had made the said order, to file his own affidavit clearly stating if he asserts for a fact on oath that the petitioner is a graduate. This Court had indicated that the petitioner says that he is not a graduate, but had passed his Class-VIII examination. The Chief Manager was also cautioned that in case the petitioner was not indeed a graduate, necessary action may be initiated against him, because the stand taken in the order impugned was prima facie directed at frustrating this Court's earlier orders dated 31.05.2023 passed in Writ-A No.9832 of 2023, requiring a verification of the petitioner's documents vis-a-vis her age.
6. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent Bank, substantially answering the petitioner's case. It is an affidavit filed by Sanjay Khanna, Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development Department, Circle Office, Saharanpur. All that is said there, for the basis of passing the impugned order, is that the petitioner, in his KYC Form submitted to the Bank before the G.T. Road, Deoband Branch, had shown himself to be a graduate way back on 18.09.2021. It is also said in Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank that the account opening form moved in the name of M/s. Deepak Electronics clearly shows the petitioner's date of birth as 20.05.1993, which was verified by his own affidavit dated 18.09.2019. It is asserted that at the time of applying for the part-time sweeper's post, the petitioner had mentioned his date of birth as 20.09.1994, a fact evident to the respondents from a perusal of documents filed along with the KYC Form relating to the bank account under reference. In Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit, there is a rather scandalous and contumacious piece of pleading, where it is asserted:
"5. That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner previously filed a writ A No. 9832 of 2023 before this Hon'ble court on the basis of false and concocted documents, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2023 with direction that the respondent bank to re-verify the documents' provided by the petitioner within 2 months, in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.05.2023; the deponent further examine the correctness of the documents provided by the petitioner along with the copy of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by this Hon'ble court in writ A No.9832 of 2023 and at the time of perusal of the documents relates to petitioner, the deponent found that the records available before the bank, which was previously submitted by the petitioner at the time of opening the account in the name of M/s Deepak Electronics, in the KYC form the petitioner clearly mentioned that he is Graduate; on that basis, the deponent passed order on 09.10.2023 in compliance of the previous order passed by this Hon'ble court; on the basis of records available before the bank.
(emphasis by Court)
7. Again, in Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, it is averred:
"6. That on the basis of the declaration upon the KYC form submitted by the petitioner before the bank on 18.09.2019 which was also verified by his affidavit, it is clearly shows that the petitioner is a graduate, therefore on that basis the deponent passed the Impugned order, on the basis of facts submitted by the petitioner on 18.09.2019 before the bank; therefore it is shows that the deponent passed the order on the basis of facts and documents submitted by the petitioner in previously before the bank, there was no any malafide intention of the deponent, the petitioner himself submitted the deferent documents for seeks illegal appointment before the bank which is not permissible in the eye of the law; if the petitioner permitted then the respondent bank filed the details counter affidavit."
8. Heard Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jainenendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank.
9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court cannot ignore the opening part of the pleadings in Paragraph No.5 of the personal affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, where it is said in a very nonchalant and almost contumacious fashion that the petitioner previously filed Writ-A No.9832 of 2023 before this Court on the basis of false and concocted documents, which was disposed of vide our order dated 31.05.2023, directing the respondent Bank to re-verify the petitioner's documents within two months. It is no business of any Manager of the Bank to speak small of our proceedings. It is not open to a litigant to say, particularly, a State litigant, that some orders of ours was passed on the basis of false and concocted documents, unless he seeks vacation of that order or its recall on that ground and that is an issue to be determined by this Court. Here, the assertion has been made in an affidavit filed in a subsequent petition, that is to say, the present writ petition, regarding proceedings of this Court that have already concluded in the order dated 31.05.2023, which the respondent Bank never challenged on ground that it was obtained by presenting false and concocted documents to this Court. The assertion in Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit to the above effect has been made to denigrate our proceedings. This fact was pointed out by this Court to the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, but he did not seek time to file a better affidavit or explain the respondent Bank's position in this regard. We, accordingly, hold that the first five lines of Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit dated 01.12.2023 filed by Sanjay Khanna, Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Saharanpur, are scandalous pleading, which ought to be struck off the record. Therefore, the following part of Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit dated 01.12.2023 filed by Sanjay Khanna, shall stand struck off as scandalous pleading:
"That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner previously filed a writ A No. 9832 of 2023 before this Hon'ble court on the basis of false and concocted documents, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2023 with direction that the respondent bank to re-verify the documents' provided by the petitioner within 2 months."
10. Sanjay Khanna, Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Circle Office, Saharanpur is admonished with the remark that he shall be careful in future in wording his pleadings filed in Court.
11. Turning to the merits of the matter, this Court is of opinion that so far as the issue of date of birth is concerned, the same does not arise in this case at all. The reason is that the impugned order has not been passed on the ground of any inaccuracy in the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his application form seeking employment. The petitioner's candidature has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of his qualifications being above eligibility, that is to say, a matriculate. It is a well settled principle of law that an order under challenge before the Court cannot be asked to be sustained by a respondent on grounds other than those mentioned in the order itself.
12. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, where their Lordships of the Constitution Bench stated the principle thus:
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
13. In short, the principle is that the impugned order cannot be supplemented for its reasons by an affidavit. This is what precisely the respondent Bank seeks to do by bringing in the issue of some discrepancy in the petitioner's date of birth, whereas that is not the ground at all, on which the impugned order is founded. The impugned order discards the petitioner's candidature solely on the ground that in some commercial transaction with the Bank, where the petitioner had opened a bank account for his firm, M/s. Deepak Electronics, he had mentioned his qualifications as graduate in the KYC Form. The KYC Form has been annexed to the affidavit filed by the respondent Bank at Page No.23. The entry in the relevant column is ex facie suspicious because the box, that was ticked for the petitioner's qualification, is the one that mentions him as an undergraduate. This tick mark has been cross-marked with a line, as if to opt out of it and the next box, which mentions the qualification 'graduate' has been tick marked. This ex facie makes the matter suspicious. But, this Court does not wish to enter into that issue.
14. In our earlier order, the Court had ordered the respondent Bank vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Writ-A No.9832 of 2023 to re-verify the entire documents pertaining to the petitioner appended with the application form. Now, apparently, the purpose of all that exercise was to find if the petitioner is indeed a graduate or he is just a matriculate; or not even that. If the petitioner is a matriculate or holds a lower qualification, he would be eligible. The petitioner along with a copy of this Court's order has produced his transfer certificate or school leaving certificate from the New Janta Public Junior High School, Village Nasarullapur, Deoband, Saharanpur, signed by the Headmaster of the school. It is countersigned by the District Basic Education Officer. It shows the petitioner to have passed his Class-VIII and his date of birth as 20.09.1994. The petitioner passed out of the New Janta Public Junior High School, Village Nasarullapur, Deoband, Saharanpur on 20.05.2008. The certificate that the petitioner has relied on has been issued on 27.11.2021 and countersigned by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur on 29.11.2021. A xerox copy of the certificate, that is on record, shows these facts also indicate that the certificate is a part of the book maintained by the School, bearing Sr. No.26. This is the most authentic document about the petitioner's qualifications, unless the petitioner holds a higher qualification.
15. The first inquiry, the Bank ought to have undertaken, was to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's school leaving/ transfer certificate, which is countersigned by the District Basic Education Office, Saharanpur. But, nothing of the kind was done. It is the duty of the Bank to verify the genuineness of the school leaving/ transfer certificate produced by the petitioner before the respondent Bank, contacting the school and the District Basic Education Officer both for the purpose. If still, the respondent Bank believe that the petitioner holds a higher qualification and is a graduate, it is open to them to inquire about the fact. If they find any evidence aliunde to indicate that the petitioner is indeed a graduate or holds a qualification above a matriculate, they would be perfectly within their rights to reject the petitioner's candidature. However, it is not open to the respondent Bank to opine that the petitioner is a graduate by relying upon an entry made in the KYC Form filled up by the petitioner while opening a bank account with them. For one, the document, as noticed by this Court regarding educational qualifications of the petitioner, betrays suspicious scoring out of one entry and the making of another.
16. Quite apart, a KYC Form submitted by a customer of the bank while opening a bank account, cannot be the basis of finally determining his rights or visiting him with adverse civil consequences in a matter as profound as public employment. In the nature of things, a form like a KYC, much as it ought not be done, is filled up with a kind of casualness about it. A qualification, even if incorrectly tick marked in the KYC Form, cannot be held as a binding admission against the subscriber or the customer in an unrelated matter like his eligibility for employment. No inference can be drawn about the petitioner's qualification based on the KYC Form. After all, a person's qualification is not a matter of admission. It is to be proved by evidence aliunde. This requires the educational testimonials to be examined or inquiries made to find out what are the real qualifications that a candidate holds.
17. It is not the case of the respondent Bank that while filling up the application form seeking employment for the post of a part-time sweeper, the petitioner has indicated himself to be a graduate. Clearly, he must not have done so, else he would have been eliminated much earlier. Now, to rely on a KYC Form submitted along with a bank opening application form in order to hold the petitioner disqualified for public employment by the Bank is a perverse approach to the matter, which this Court cannot countenance. The impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, has been passed on irrelevant considerations, relied on extraneous materials and is clearly perverse.
18. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Circle Office, Saharanpur is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the Chief Manager, Human Resource and Development, Circle Office, Saharanpur to re-determine the petitioner's entitlement to be appointed a part-time sweeper on the basis of select-list dated 25.02.2022, and appoint him if found to be the holder of educational qualifications not above a matriculate. This order shall be carried out by the respondent Bank within a month of its receipt.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023 Anoop (J.J. Munir, J.)