IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12953 of 2010 1. RANJIT KUMAR S/O SRI KISHORE PRASAD R/O 124 RMS BEHIND CHAMAR TOLI , KANKARBAGH, P.S.-KANKARBAGH, PATNA. 2. PRAKASH KUMAR S/O LATE RAJENDRA SINGH R/O VILL.-PARANIA, P.S.-NEORA, DIST.-PATNA. 3. UDAY BHAN SINGH S/O KAGJI SINGH R/O WOOD APARTMENT,FLAT NO.107,BANDAR BAGICHA,FRASER ROAD,P.S.-KOTWALI ,DIST.-PATNA 4. SHYAM NATH PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE SRI MAHABIR SAH R/O NAL BAND TOLI,P.S.-BUXAR,DIST.-BUXAR. 5. RAJAN KUMAR S/O LALAN BAITHA R/O RAM NAGAR, BANGALI TOLA NEAR DEVI ASTHAN, JAKKANPUR, PATNA. 6. AMIT KUMAR S/O LATE RAM KHELAWAN RAVIDAS R/O VILL.- DAUDNAGAR, P.S.-MASAURHI, DIST.-PATNA. 7. ROUSHAN KUMAR S/O SRI ARJUN RAM R/O TAREGANA, KUMHAR TOLI, P.S.-MASAURHI, DIST.PATNA. 8. KUMAR RAVICHAND S/O SRI JAGDISH RAM R/O HARIJAN COLONY, HAJIPUR, P.S.-HAJIPUR, DIST.-VAISHALI. 9. URMILA DEVI W/O LATE BALDEO MANDAL R/O PURANI TARIDIH BODH GAYA, P.S.-BODHA GAYA, DIST.-GAYA. Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, PATNA ANCHAL,CHANKYA PALACE, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, R' BLOCK PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, PANTA ANCHAL, PATNA. 5. THE SENIOR MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. For the Bank : Mr. Shivajee Pandey, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 06. 03.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioners are serving as Class-IV employee on daily wage basis in the different branches of the Bank. They applied for appointment as Class-IV employee of the Bank pursuant to advertisement dated 19.6.2009, Annexure-1 which inter alia provided for minimum, maximum educational qualification as also the - 2 - minimum and maximum age limit for the applicants. Petitioners having participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 19.6.2009 become successful and were also subjected to medical examination in which also they were declared medically fit. While the petitioners were waiting for the appointment letter they learnt that the selection process has been cancelled and another advertisement dated 17.8.2010 has been issued, which is contained in Annexure-6 to the interlocutory application, whereunder maximum qualification for the applicant and the post has not been provided, the minimum qualification and the age limit is, however provided as before. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that by cancelling the earlier advertisement and deleting the maximum qualification for employment on Class-IV post in the Bank petitioners are likely to suffer as others with higher qualification of matriculation with 60% marks and above will also apply for the Class-IV post and are likely to succeed. It is also submitted that a candidate with minimum qualification of class-8 or above but less than matriculation with 60 % marks is ideally suited for discharging Class-IV duties in the Bank and in appreciation of such fact earlier advertisement was issued not only by the Bank but such is the qualification for appointment on Class-IV post in other Banks as well. The departure by deleting maximum qualification from the advertisement is not only likely to affect the petitioners and others who are 8th pass or matriculation with less than 60% marks but also the Bank as persons - 3 - with higher qualification if appointed to serve as Class-IV employee may not discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the Bank. It is also submitted that even if the Bank has decided to delete the maximum qualification, it could have done after completing the selection process pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 3.10.2009, Annexure-2 and not mid away, as such, deletion is likely to affect the prospect of the petitioners who have succeeded in the selection test and have also been found medically fit. 4. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer. He states that Bank noticed that candidate with higher qualification i.e. matriculation with 60% marks and above applied ignoring the maximum qualification clause of the advertisement by withholding his superior qualification after such suppression was discovered, disciplinary action was taken for suppressing superior qualification, the punishment order was challenged before Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and was set aside under order dated 21.7.2009 Anneuxre-A to the counter affidavit placing reliance over the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others Versus District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 919. The Supreme Court having considered the minimum and the maximum qualification provided in the advertisement issued for Class-IV appointment in the subordinate courts observed that while publishing advertisement for appointment on Class-IV post minimum qualification required for the candidates be prescribed, but it is not appropriate to provide for maximum - 4 - qualification. In appreciation of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Reazul Usman Gani(Supra) the Bank has chosen to cancel the earlier advertisement dated 3.10.2009 by publishing another advertisement dated 17.8.2010 in which maximum qualification for appointment on Class-IV post in the Bank has been deleted as the SLP filed by the Bank agasint the order of the Nagpur Bench dated 21.7.2009, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit has already been dismissed under order dated 4.12.2009, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. Counsel for the petitioners in reply submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been rendered in connection with Class-IV employment in the subordinate courts and should not apply in connection with Class-IV employment in the Bank. 6. I regret not to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioners in view of the fact that against the order of the Nagpur Bench, Annexure-A setting aside the punishment order of the Bank employee who secured employment suppressing his superior qualification contrary to the maximum qualification clause in the advertisement relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul the SLP of the Bank was dismissed under orders dated 4.12.2009, Annexure-B. Further Class-IV employee may be in a Bank or serving the subordinate courts or in any other office is required to do the same job, which is done either in court house or in the Bank or in some other office, in the circumstances, in my opinion, - 5 - there does not appear to be any illegality in the Bank withdrawing the earlier advertisement dated 3.10.2009, Annexure-2 and publishing advertisement dated 17.8.2010, Annexure-6 after deleting the maximum qualification clause. The writ application is dismissed, however with observation that petitioners who were applicant pursuant to the earlier advertisement be allowed the benefit of age relaxation while considering their case in the light of the subsequent advertisement. AFR Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)