2025:JHHC:25246 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S No. 3974 of 2025 ---- Birendra Kumar Das, Son of Binod Kumar Das, R/o - Ningha Imlidhawra, Near Old Sripur IC P.O.+P.S. Ningha, Dist. Paschim Dardhaman, West Bengal. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand Rajya Gramin (JRG) Bank, through its Chairman, Head Office 3rd Floor Jila Parishad Offices Premises Kutchery Road Ranchi, P.O - G.P.O. P.S-Kotwali, District- Ranchi Jharkhand. 2. General Manager (HRD) JRG- Jharkhand Rajya Gramin, Head Office 3rd Floor Jila Parishad Offices Premises Kutchery Road Ranchi, P.O - G.P.O. P.S- Kotwali, District- Ranchi Jharkhand. 3. Assistant General Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Having Head office at 3rd Floor, Zila Parishad Office Premises, Kutchery Road Ranchi, P.O - G.P.O. P.S- Kotwali, District- Ranchi Jharkhand … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Purushottam Anand Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Dey, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate ---- 03/20.08.2025 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure- 3) issued by respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the candidature of the petitioner for the post of General Banking Officer Scale-II has been cancelled. And/or b) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the post of General Banking Officer Scale -II for which he has been selected pursuant to the recruitment process conducted by IBPS. And/or c) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in nature of mandamus directing the Respondents authority to allow the petitioner to join the post from the day he was eligible and to grant all the benefits which the petitioner was eligible from the day of joining. 2. The petitioner applied for the Common Recruitment Process 2025:JHHC:25246 -: 2 :- Regional Rural Banks XII recruitment for Group "A" Officers (Scale I, II & III) and successfully cleared all stages- written exam, interview, and document verification. He was provisionally selected and received a joining letter from JRG Bank. As part of the joining process, he submitted all required documents, including full disclosure of a past penalty from a previous job, which is still pending under appeal. However, on 04.04.2025, JRG Bank canceled his candidature, solely because of his past removal from service by another bank due to allegations of misconduct. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- bank cancelled his job offer without granting any opportunity of personal hearing or clarification. He further submits that the cancellation was based solely on the fact that he was earlier removed from another bank on the ground of alleged misconduct. The earlier penalty did not involve any criminal conviction, nor did it disqualify him from future jobs. In fact, the order from Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank clearly states that he is not barred from future employment. He submits that the penalty order did not record any finding of moral turpitude, nor did it impose any disqualification from future employment. As per him, canceling his candidature without notice or hearing is unfair and goes against the principles of natural justice. He states that such past penalty is not a valid reason for disqualification. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not formally appointed or inducted in service. The selection of a candidate is not merely a matter of academic qualification or interview performance but also involves candidate’s suitability, integrity, and character. The Bank, exercising its discretion, found the petitioner unsuitable for appointment based on his past service record, thus, was not finally selected. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner was earlier employed in Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank as Branch Manager at Kishanganj Branch, where the petitioner faced a Departmental Proceeding for charges of financial irregularities while closing 14 loan accounts. In the said departmental proceeding, as the guilt of the petitioner was found proved, petitioner was imposed with a penalty of “removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 39(1)(b)(iv) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 read with the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Service (Amendment) Regulations, 2013”. From the records, it also appears that the petitioner is also facing a criminal case being Kishanganj 2025:JHHC:25246 -: 3 :- Police Station Case No.468 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj. Considering the above background of the petitioner, the respondent bank vide letter dated 04.04.2025 has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for the post of General Banking Officer Scale-II. It is a well settled principle that an employer has the right to take a decision on candidature of a candidate considering the background of the candidate and the employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Methu Meda reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 at paragraph 21 thereof has held that: - 21. ….The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate… 7. Considering the facts of the case and the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgment, I find that the respondent bank was well within their discretion to take a decision on the candidature of the petitioner. I find no force in the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Thus, there being no merit, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02