Higher qualification beyond advertised maximum and suppression of educational facts disqualify candidates from recruitment.

The petitioner applied for the post of Part-time Sweeper (PTS) following an advertisement published by Punjab National Bank (PNB) on 12.10.2021.

The advertisement specified that the educational eligibility was "not 10th Class/standard passed," meaning even illiterate candidates were eligible, but those who passed the 10th standard were excluded.

The petitioner submitted her application claiming to be a 9th-standard pass.

The respondent Bank discovered via Annexure-P/4 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had actually passed the 12th standard.

Consequently, the Bank did not call her for the interview conducted between 03.12.2021 and 07.12.2021, leading the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus for recruitment.

1. Whether the suppression of higher educational qualifications and possessing a qualification higher than the maximum prescribed limit renders a candidate ineligible for the post of Part-time Sweeper?

2. Whether the Court can interfere with the employer's prerogative to set maximum educational qualifications for a specific job profile?

The Court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das (2021) 12 SCC 80, which held that deliberate and willful suppression of higher educational qualifications makes an applicant ineligible for selection in the Bank.

The Court also applied the principle of employer prerogative, stating that an employer is the most competent authority to determine the specific eligibility criteria required for a particular role to ensure efficiency and prevent future hindrances in work.

The Court observed that the advertisement explicitly restricted eligibility to those who had not passed the 10th standard.

The petitioner engaged in "deliberate suppression" by claiming to be a 9th-standard pass while actually holding a 12th-standard qualification.

Applying the Anit Kumar Das precedent, the Court reasoned that such suppression is fatal to the candidacy.

Furthermore, the Court noted that an employer might consciously choose less-educated candidates for manual roles like "sweeper" because over-qualified individuals might "create hindrance in the work" or seek better opportunities shortly after joining.

The Court refused to interpret a 12th-standard pass as being "equivalent" to a 9th-standard pass, as doing so would overstep judicial boundaries and interfere with the employer's operational requirements.

The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with the employer's specific recruitment criteria.

Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.