- (1.) This appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5 November 2014.
(2.) The respondent applied for appointment on the post of an Assistant Clerk in pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by the State Bank of India in August 2009. The respondent was appointed on 3 December 2010 and joined his services as an Assistant Clerk at Dohri Ghat Branch of the Bank in district Mau. He was deputed for training and on successful completion thereof, he was placed on probation by an order dated 13 June 2011. The probationary period was extended by three months since the work of the respondent was not found to be satisfactory. The services of the respondent were terminated by an order dated 27 August 2011 of the Regional Manager at Gorakhpur by cancelling his appointment, treating it as void ab initio.
(3.) The ground on which the order of appointment was cancelled was that at the written examination conducted by the Bank on 8 November 2009 in pursuance of the recruitment process, it was not the respondent who had appeared but, according to the Bank, some one else had appeared against the candidature of the respondent impersonating him. The Bank treated this as a suppression of a material fact that the respondent had not appeared at the written examination and had allowed some one else to appear. The appointment was treated as void ab initio particularly, placing reliance on Clause 17 (i) of the General Instructions, which stipulated that if it was detected at any stage of the recruitment that a candidate does not fulfil the eligibility norms and/or that the candidate had furnished any incorrect or false information or suppressed any material fact, the candidature would stand cancelled and if such shortcomings are detected even after appointment, the services are liable to be terminated. Similarly, reliance was placed on a condition of the letter of appointment under which suppression of material facts would lead to the appointment being regarded as void ab initio.;