YASHWANT VARMA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan Agrwal, who has appeared for the respondents 1 to 4.
(2.) The petitioner entered the employment of the Bank on the post of House Keeper. At the time when he entered service, he gave a declaration dated 14 August 2013 to the effect that although he had passed the 10th Standard in 2007, he had not passed the 12th Standard. It subsequently appears to have come to light that this declaration was false. On the basis thereof disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for having knowingly made a false declaration. In disciplinary proceedings this charge stood proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to pass an order of removal from service without disqualification from future employment.
(3.) Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. - 69034 of 2009 to submit that the possession of a higher qualification can never be treated to be a disqualification or form reasonable ground for termination of employment. While this Court does not dispute the above broad proposition, the issue which arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner had made a false declaration or at least made a misleading statement. On this issue, the Court is bound by what was held by a Division Bench in Ritesh Kumar Mishra v. Union Bank of India and another; 2015 (147) FLR 176 wherein in paragraph 3 it was held as follows: "The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge , Nagpur is that the qualification prescribed is a minimum qualification and a higher qualification could not disqualify a candidate from obtaining the job. The difficulty in accepting the submission is that the appellant responded to the advertisement and participated in the process of selection. The condition imposed in the advertisement was not challenged at any stage. The appellant filed an affidavit and a declaration which were admittedly false and contrary to facts which were in the knowledge of the appellant. Though the appellant had passed the interediate examination, he stated in his declaration that he was only a High School passed candidate in his affidavit, he stated that he has not passed the intermediate examination. A candidate who has made a fraudulent misrepresentation cannot be heard to now challenge the terms of the advertisement. A disciplinary enquiry was held on a charge of fraudulent concealment which has been duly found to be established. Hence, the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.";