TAPAN KUMAR Vs. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in the present application seeks a direction to the Respondent-Canara Bank to accept his joining on the post of Probationary Technical Field Officer, a specialist cadre post for which he was issued appointment letters dated 2.8.2013 and 6.9.2013 and challenges the decision of the Bank by which his joining on the said post has been refused on the ground that he did not hold the minimum educational qualification as on 1.1.2013 as required in the advertisement.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea that the petitioner as a matter of fact, held the qualification as on 1.1.2013 has placed reliance upon provisional degree certificate issued by Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, dated 2.2.2013 wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner became eligible for award of B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) in December, 2012. He submits that though provisional decree certificate was issued on 2.2.2013, he had got the eligibility for the said degree in 2012 itself, and therefore, his candidature could not have been rejected for appointment to the post in question on the ground that he did not hold the said educational qualification as on 1.1.2013. He has drawn my attention to a copy of the on-line application submitted by him to contend that he had mentioned in the said application the date of passing the examination as 19.12.2012 and had also disclosed the percentage of marks which he scored in the said examination as 65%.

(3.) From the advertisement, it appears that the candidates were required to submit their on-line application between 10.1.2013 to 28.1.2013. There is no material nor any pleadings that result of the examination for fulfilling the educational eligibility criteria was published prior to 1.1.2013 and made known to the examinee. The Court is surprised to find that at the time of submission of his application, he disclosed the percentage of marks also which he had scored in B.E. (Mechanical) examination, though there is no statement or document in support of the fact that the petitioner could legally know about his score in the examination.