Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order passed by the respondents (‘SBI’) and direct the petitioner’s appointment as Circle Based Officer (‘CBO’), N. Mala J., referring to the recruitment notification, stated that the bank took a prudent decision that the candidates with history of default in repayment of loans and adverse CIBIL and other external agencies report were ineligible. Therefore, considering the petitioner’s adverse CIBIL report and the recruitment notification, the Court upheld the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s appointment as CBO.
Background
SBI issued a notification dated 27-7-2020 inviting applications for the post of CBO. Petitioner, applied under the OBC category, cleared all stages of recruitment including interviews and medical tests, and received an appointment order dated 12-3-2021. The petitioner’s CIBIL report was obtained on 12-3-2021 and verified by the SBI on 16-3-2021. Due to adverse credit history in the report, he was asked to submit an explanation, which he did on 1-4-2021 along with relevant documents, requesting to retain his appointment.
SBI contended that upon verification of his CIBIL credit report, they identified multiple instances of default in repayment of loans, credit card write-offs, non-payment of EMI for more than one instalment, and over 50 personal loan enquiries. Thereafter, the SBI issued a cancellation order on 9-4-2021, citing Clause 1(E) of the recruitment notification, which disqualifies candidates with adverse credit history or CIBIL reports.
The issue for consideration in the present case was whether the SBI was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that the petitioner had poor CIBIL score and had poor history of loan repayments.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that as per Clause 1(E) of the recruitment notification, what was required was not the repayment of loans as on the date of notification but maintaining a clear record of repayment of loans, without any default and/or not having an adverse CIBIL report or of other external agencies. The Court noted that the petitioner had admitted his default in repaying the personal loans and thus stated that SBI could not be faulted for invoking Clause 1(E) of the recruitment notification.
Regarding the petitioner’s contention on the ground of discrimination, the Court observed that SBI clearly stated that only those candidates who satisfied the requirement in the circular dated 20-3-2021, alone would be allowed to join duty. Since the petitioner had defaulted in making payments for more than one instalment, he could not take advantage of the said circular. Therefore, the Court stated that the objection on the ground of discrimination had no legs to stand.
Applying the ratio laid down in Punjab National Bank v. Anik Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, the Court observed that the petitioner, having participated in the recruitment process as per the notification, could not now turn around and reinterpret Clause 1(E) to mean that no dues were outstanding only as on the date of notification, especially when he had not challenged the clause itself.
The Court further noted that the bank’s decision to disqualify candidates with a history of default or adverse CIBIL report was a prudent decision. The probable rationale behind the said criteria might be that in banking business, the employees deal with public money, and therefore financial discipline needed to be strictly maintained. Further, the Court stated that there must be efficiency in handling public money and a person with a poor or no financial disciple could not be entrusted with public money. Therefore, referring to J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P., (1990) 1 SCC 288, the Court stated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court would not interfere with the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank.
The Court further relied on Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548, wherein it was held that the recruitment to public service should be strictly adhered in accordance with the terms of advertisement and recruitment rules and deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post.
Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order and accordingly, dismissed the present writ petition.
[P. Karthikeyan v. SBI, W.P. No. 11122 of 2021 decided on 02-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: V. Sidharth, Advocate
For the Respondents: C. Mohan, A. Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s. King & Patridge, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
