Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Bank Of Baroda vs Susmita Saha on 20 April, 2021

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta

                                                   1


                   ITEM NO.13       Court 9 (Video Conferencing)          SECTION XIV

                                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 5254-5255/2020

                   (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
                   03-05-2019 in LPA No. 298/2019 15-11-2019 in RP No. 443/2019
                   passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

                   BANK OF BARODA                                        Petitioner(s)

                                                       VERSUS

                   SUSMITA SAHA                                          Respondent(s)

                   Date : 20-04-2021 These petitions were called on
                                        for hearing today.

                   CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA


                   For Petitioner(s)     Mr.   Tushar Mehta, Ld. S.G.
                                         Ms.   Praveena Gautam, AOR
                                         Mr.   Pawan Shukla, Adv.
                                         Mr.   Raja Ram, Adv.
                                         Mr.   Aman Sharma, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)     Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv.
                                         Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR



                         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                           O R D E R

Leave granted.

Interim order dated 24.02.2020 is made absolute. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The original controversy which gave rise to filing Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2021.04.20 of the writ petition really does not survive in view of the 17:30:31 IST Reason: fact that subsequently the appointment letter was issued on 15.05.2019.

2

The issue now before us is that as per Clause 12 of that appointment letter at page 226, the educational certificate inter alia submitted at the time of joining the course Post-Graduate Diploma in Banking & Finance course was deemed to be material for purposes of appointment.

It is at the stage of the review application which has been dismissed by the impugned order (albeit a non- reasoned one) that the issue was raised that post issuance of this appointment letter was the occasion to verify the qualification degree of the respondent and it is alleged that the degree is not even recognized by the UGC which is stated to be completed under the distance learning programme. The degree in question is of Bachelor of Science and the averments in this behalf is at para 4 of review application at page 231. It is in view thereof that the plea has been raised in para 6 of the review application that the appellant Bank is unable to offer the respondent appointment of a Probationary Officer in the Bank on the basis of a non-valid/genuine graduation degree which is a basic qualification required to be eligible for appointment to the post graduate diploma as well as consequent appointment in the Bank as a Probationary Officer in Scale I. Learned Solicitor General has drawn our attention to the Fact Finding Report of a Committee constituted by the UGC recorded at page 29 onwards. The Committee recommended 3 the dissolution of the Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management [EIILM] University. It has also been opined that the University did not have any mandate to affiliate any college/institute. However, simultaneously, the Committee has recommended the State Government of Sikkim to protect the interests of unsuspecting students of the University residing in Sikkim who have taken admission on regular basis with recommendation that the campus students may be accommodated by the State Government in different close by colleges and Universities till completion of the course. In the facts of the present case, the respondent is an off-campus student. The question thus, would arise is about the validity of this degree which is a pre-requisite to the appointment.

In this behalf, it appears that there were similar situations faced qua other off-campus affiliation of different Universities which has given rise to judicial pronouncement by this Court which may have some bearing [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. -(2018) 1 SCC 468)].

We are of the view that learned counsel for the parties may examine this aspect to assist the Court.

We may take note of the fact that the initial controversy had arisen on account of the respondent being a person with disability and having got over that aspect, the present issue now confronts the respondent. We would also like the Solicitor General, in view of this fact, to look 4 into the issue as to whether there can by any methodology to assist the respondent in securing a job for which the respondent succeeded in a competitive examination as she is possibly a victim of fraud/non-eligible affiliations for off-campus education by the concerned University.

List as part-heard in the week commencing 4 th May, 2021.

[ASHA SUNDRIYAL]                       [POONAM VAID]
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS             COURT MASTER (NSH)