- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st August, 1990, Annexure P.5, issued by the Manager Personnel, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Chandigarh, debarring the petitioner from appearing in the interview scheduled to be held on 4th August, 1990, for the post of Cost Analyst Officer. At the notice of motion stage, when the petition came up before us on 3rd August, 1990, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview, and later when the written statement was filed, the respondents were directed to declare the result of the petitioner of the test subject to final decision of the writ petition.
(2.) The respondents in their written statement have pleaded that as mentioned in the impugned order dated 1st August, 1990 (Annexure P.5), the petitioner was not considered eligible to appear in the written test as he had earlier refused the offer of promotion for Junior Manager Scale-I on 13th July, 1989. As such, he was debarred for one year form the date of the aforesaid refusal form appearing in any written test or interview, etc. It has further been admitted that even though the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the written test, yet he was permitted to do so in a mistaken belief that he was eligible by virtue of his qualifications and seniority, but when the mistake came to the notice of the authorities, he was debarred from appearing in the interview. As such, the petitioner could not draw any benefit out of his participation in the written test. In these circumstances, it has been pleaded that there was no need to hear the petitioner before issuing the order, Annexure P.5. Relevant portion of sub-paras (viii) and (ix) of para 16 of the written statement are reproduced below to appreciate the exact stand of the respondents :- 16. "In reply to para 16 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the letter dated 1.18.1990 (Annexure P.5) is legal and cannot be assailed on any ground. Reply to grounds is as under : (viii) .......Debarment for posting/officiating includes debarment from appearing in tests. As soon as the mistake of allowing the petitioner to appear in the test by inadvertence was detected, he was informed that he was ineligible to appear in the written test and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to appear in the interview which is nothing but culmination of written test. (ix) ....There was no need to hear the petitioner while issuing letter, Annexure P.5, as it was consequence of detection of slip that had occurred in allowing the petitioner to take the written test. No right vests in the petitioner to take premium of mistake and action arising out of advertence of the management. Hearing even it afforded to the petitioner would not improve his position."
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the stand taken by the respondents is wholly untenable in law. Before passing the impugned order, it was the duty of the respondents to grant to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as it was the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice as it affected the future career of the petitioner.;