Candidate suppressing information or giving false information cannot claim the right to continue in service: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a candidate who suppresses material information cannot claim right to continue in service, observing that such material suppression would have a “clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuance in service.” .The Court was dealing with a case involving an over-qualified candidate who had applied for a peon position at a bank while suppressing the fact that he was overqualified (Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. vs Amit Kumar Das)..In the advertisement for the position, the eligibility criterion was 12th standard or equivalent. It was also stated that candidate should not be a graduate as on January 1, 2016. The respondent had applied for the post, but did not disclose in his application or a biodata that he was a graduate..The respondent was selected from the Balsar District and an order of appointment was issued. However, upon scrutiny, the suppression of fact came to light that he was graduate since 2014. His candidature was, therefore, cancelled..Challenging this order, a case was filed in the Odisha High Court. .A Single judge of the High Court, relying upon the Allahabad High Court's verdict in Pankaj Kumar Dubey v. Punjab National Bank ruled in favour of the respondent stating, “... a candidate cannot be denied the appointment solely on the ground that he is possessing higher qualification.” .On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court also upheld the order. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, in its order, noted that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post. .The Bench further observed that it is not for the Courts to consider and assess this aspect. Rather, the Court said that a “greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post”.."... 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 expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications..."Supreme Court.Referring to the decision of the Bank to not hire a graduate, as explicitly stated in the advertisement, the Court noted that it was a “conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008.”.“High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent 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,” the Bench added..Dealing with the issue of material suppression of facts, the Court went on to note “that the repsondent had deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressing the fact that he was a graduate.”.As such, the Bench said, ."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 so. He was in fact overqualified 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.".The three-judge Bench, therefore, quashed the order of the High Court, holding, that “suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuance in service.”.The Court added,.“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 qualification."Supreme Court.However, the Court refrained from imposing any costs, even though it noted that “because of the mischievous act on the part of the respondent, one candidate could not get the job.”.Read judgment: