Prashant Sharma vs Punjab And Sind Bank & Ors on 23 April, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Prashant Sharma vs Punjab And Sind Bank & Ors on 23 April, 2026

1. The Petitioner applied for the post of Manager Cyber Security (MMGS II) under the Lateral Recruitment of Specialist Officers, 2024 conducted by Respondent No. 1, Punjab & Sind Bank1, pursuant to advertisement dated 31st August, 2024. His case is that he holds a B.Tech degree in Computer Science and Engineering, has more than ten years' experience in IT Network and Cyber Security, and has, in addition, been working as a Senior Cyber Security Analyst in the PSB CISO Cell, Security Operations. On that basis, he contends that he possesses the requisite banking experience and was, therefore, fully eligible for the post. He also points out that he cleared the online written examination held on 29 th December, 2024 and was thereafter called for document verification. His 1 "PSB"

W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 1 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52 grievance is that, despite submission of documents, he was not shortlisted for interview and no deficiency was communicated to him. He thereafter pursued the matter through e-mails, RTI applications, and a detailed representation dated 16th March, 2026, but without success.

2. Ms. Dimple Sirohi, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner was fully eligible for the post of Manager Cyber Security and was wrongly excluded at the final stage without any disclosure of deficiency or reason. She points out that the Petitioner possesses the prescribed educational qualification, namely a B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering, and has substantial experience in IT Network and Cyber Security. More importantly, according to the Petitioner, he has been working since 25th January, 2021 in the Punjab & Sind Bank CISO Cell, Security Operations, as Senior Cyber Security Analyst, and therefore has more than the minimum three years' banking experience required under the advertisement, with the requisite exposure in Information Security.

3. The Petitioner was permitted to participate in the written examination, qualified on merit, and was thereafter called for document verification. In that backdrop, his subsequent exclusion at the stage of interview, without any communication of deficiency or ineligibility, is assailed as arbitrary and unfair. Counsel submits that, having accepted the Petitioner's application and allowed him to progress through successive stages of the selection process, the Respondent Bank could not thereafter apply a restrictive standard that was never transparently disclosed in the recruitment notice. It is further submitted that the Bank has, despite repeated e-mails, RTI applications, appellate remedies, and a detailed representation dated 16 th March, 2026, failed to disclose the basis of such exclusion. The impugned W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 2 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52 action is thus stated to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, defeat the Petitioner's legitimate expectation of fair consideration, and amount to an impermissible exclusion at the threshold of interview.

4. Counsel further submits that the Bank has adopted an unduly narrow and artificial interpretation of the expression "experience in Banking". Her submission is that the advertisement does not stipulate that such experience must be gained only as a direct employee on the rolls of a bank. According to her, what matters is the nature of the work actually performed. The Petitioner was not working in some abstract or detached IT role. He was deployed in the security operations of Punjab & Sind Bank itself and was performing cyber security functions for the Bank's own systems and infrastructure. On that basis, it is argued that his experience is plainly banking experience in the field of Information Security.

5. It is also urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the Bank ought, at the very least, to have put him to notice if it entertained any doubt about the nature of his experience. Instead, the Bank remained silent, disclosed no criteria, furnished no meaningful response even under RTI, and left the Petitioner to infer his rejection only after the list of shortlisted candidates was uploaded on 31st May, 2025 without his name. Counsel argues that such opacity is itself a marker of arbitrariness.

6. Per contra, Mr. Sourabh Mahla, counsel for the Bank, submits that the matter turns entirely on the terms of the recruitment notice. He contends that for the post in question the advertisement expressly required a minimum of three years' post-basic qualification experience in Banking, with a minimum of two years' experience in Information Security. According to him, while the Petitioner may possess the requisite educational qualification W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 3 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

7. Mr. Mahla submits that the certificates relied upon by the Petitioner are issued by Inspira Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd., which is his actual employer, and not by PSB. The Bank's case, therefore, is that the Petitioner was working for a third-party outsourcing or placement entity, and such experience cannot be treated as experience in Banking merely because the deployment happened to be at the Bank's premises or in relation to its work.

8. He further submits that the Bank has not altered any eligibility condition midway. Nor has it introduced any new criterion after the process began. The scrutiny at the stage of document verification, according to him, was only to ascertain whether the candidates who had qualified the written examination in fact met the advertised eligibility conditions. In that exercise, the Petitioner's documents did not establish the required banking experience, and therefore he was not shortlisted for interview. He submits that mere participation in the written examination or being called for document verification does not create any vested right to be considered further if, upon scrutiny, the candidate is found ineligible under the recruitment notice itself. He also contends that the issue is one of objective eligibility and not one requiring any prior oral hearing or show cause.

9. Mr. Mahla also disputes the suggestion of arbitrariness or mala fides. According to him, the Bank has applied the same eligibility standard to all candidates and has not singled out the Petitioner for adverse treatment. The complaint regarding non-reply to RTI requests or representation, he submits, does not alter the legal position if the Petitioner, on the face of the documents produced by him, did not satisfy the essential requirement of W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 4 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52 three years' experience in Banking. In sum, the Respondent's case is that the Petitioner's experience may at best be projected as work connected with a banking institution, but it cannot be elevated into banking experience as required by the advertisement, and the writ petition therefore deserves dismissal.

Discussion and reasons

10. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The Petitioner's educational qualification is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that he was allowed to sit for the written examination and was called for document verification. The case turns on a single question, namely, whether the experience relied upon by the Petitioner answered the requirement in the recruitment notice of "minimum 3 years of Post Basic Qualification experience in Banking with minimum 2 years' experience in Information Security." Once the matter is seen in that light, the starting point must necessarily be the recruitment notice itself which is extracted as under:

                                   Sr. No.         Post           and Educational                      Post basic
                                                   Grade              Qualification                    qualification
                                                                                                       work
                                                                                                       Experience
                                   xx              xx                      xx                          xx
                                   16.             Manager-                B.E / B.Tech in Computer Minimum 3 years
                                                   Cyber Security          Science/ Information        of Post Basic
                                                                           Technology/ Electronics Qualification
                                                                           and Communications/         experience in
                                                                           Electronics/ Electrical & Banking with
                                                                           Electronics Engineering or minimum 2 years'
                                                                           equivalent qualification or experience in
                                                                           M.C.A / Masters with        Information
                                                                           specialization in           Security
                                                                           Information Technology/
                                                                           Information Security /
                                                                           Cyber security from any



                          W.P.(C) 5474/2026                                                                                Page 5 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

At least one of the following certifications:1.Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA- Security)2.Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP)3.Cisco Certified Network Professional (CCNP) Routing and Switching or Security

4.Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH)

11. In public recruitment, the employer is entitled to prescribe the eligibility conditions for the post, and the Court cannot rewrite those conditions under the guise of interpretation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the terms of the advertisement must be applied as they stand, that the field of eligibility cannot be enlarged by judicial construction, and that questions like equivalence of qualification are primarily for the recruiting authority and not for the Court. That principle has been stated in clear terms in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan,2 State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun,3 and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad.4

12. The relevant condition was not general experience in cyber security, even if connected with a financial institution. It specifically required post-

(2011) 12 SCC 85 3 (2002) 6 SCC 252 4 (2019) 2 SCC 404 W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 6 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52 basic qualification experience in Banking, along with a minimum of two years' experience in Information Security. These terms were part of a deliberately framed eligibility framework for a specialist lateral recruitment post. If the Bank intended to recognise vendor-deployed service at a bank as sufficient, it could have expressly provided so in the advertisement. It plainly did not.

13. The documents relied upon by the Petitioner do not dislodge that position. On their face, they are certificates issued by Inspira Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. They show employment with that entity. They do not show appointment by PSB. They do not certify that the Petitioner held a post in the Bank. At the highest, they may indicate that he was deployed for work connected with the Bank's cyber security operations. Even if that factual assertion is assumed in the Petitioner's favour, it does not answer the requirement as framed in the advertisement.

14. That distinction is not technical or contrived. A person may perform highly specialised work for a bank through a vendor arrangement. That may give him experience in information security work relating to a banking institution. But the Bank was entitled to insist on experience in Banking as such. The Court cannot remove that distinction merely because the work performed by the Petitioner may have been useful to the Bank or closely connected with its internal systems. To do so would be to treat one kind of experience as equivalent to another, despite the advertisement not doing so. That is precisely the area in which judicial review must remain restrained.

15. The submission that the Petitioner has, in substance, been working in the PSB CISO Cell since January 2021 does not advance the Petitioner's case. Even assuming that to be so, the question is not whether he rendered W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 7 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52 services to the Bank. The question is whether the documents produced by him established the kind of experience the advertisement required. In the absence of a document showing engagement by the Bank in a manner answering the condition of experience in Banking, the Respondent cannot be faulted for holding that the requirement was not met.

16. The argument founded on legitimate expectation is also misplaced. Mere permission to participate in the written examination, or even being called for document verification, does not create an enforceable right to be shortlisted further if, upon scrutiny, the candidate is found ineligible. Recruitment processes often proceed in stages, and scrutiny of documents after the written examination is not an empty formality. It exists precisely to verify whether the candidate who has crossed an earlier stage in fact satisfies the essential conditions of eligibility. If the Bank, at that stage, found that the Petitioner's experience certificates did not answer the prescribed requirement, no legal bar arose merely because he had earlier been permitted to compete.

17. For the same reason, the plea of estoppel cannot be accepted. There can be no estoppel against the terms of the advertisement. If the eligibility condition was not fulfilled, mere participation at an earlier stage could not compel the Bank to carry an ineligible candidate forward in the process.

18. The complaint that no separate opportunity of hearing was granted before the Petitioner was not shortlisted also does not persuade the Court. This was not a case of penal action, or of any disputed misconduct being held against him. It was a case of scrutiny of objective eligibility under the terms of the recruitment notice. Where the dispute turns on whether the documents furnished satisfy the prescribed qualification or experience, the W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 8 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

19. The Court also does not find substance in the submission that the Respondents changed the rules of the game after the process had begun. No new criterion appears to have been introduced. The Bank has all along rested its decision on the same requirement which was there in the advertisement from the beginning, namely, minimum three years' post-basic qualification experience in Banking, with at least two years in Information Security. The real grievance of the Petitioner is not that the rule changed. It is that the rule, as framed, has been applied against him in a manner he considers too strict. But strict application of an existing eligibility condition is not the same thing as changing it midway.

20. The RTI exchanges and the non-response to the representation may explain why the Petitioner felt constrained to approach the Court. They do not, however, alter the substantive issue. The matter ultimately depends on the eligibility clause in the advertisement and the documents relied upon by the Petitioner. On that issue, the Respondent's view cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the recruitment notice. Conclusion

21. Thus, the Petitioner may well possess substantial technical experience in cyber security, and he may also have worked on assignments connected with the Bank's information security operations through a third-party employer. But that is not the same thing as meeting the specific eligibility requirement of three years' post-basic qualification experience in Banking as stipulated in the advertisement. The Court cannot bridge that gap by interpretation. To do so would be to recast the eligibility condition itself, which is plainly not open in judicial review.

W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 9 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52

22. No ground for interference under Article 226 is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 23, 2026 nk W.P.(C) 5474/2026 Page 10 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 21:35:52

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders