[2026:RJ-JP:12485] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16495/2022 Komal Vaishnav, D/o Shri Gopichand Vaishnav, Aged About 23 Years, Permanent R/o Village Gaonri Kalan, Post Ahmadpur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur - Presently Residing At Nasiya Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, Through Its Chief Manager, Human Resource Department, Circle Office, Plot No. 9-A, Near Dic Industrial Area, Dcm Road, Kota-324007 (Rajasthan) 2. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Human Resource Department, Circle Office, Plot No. 9-A, Near Dic Industrial Area, Dcm Road, Kota-324007 (Rajasthan) 3. Disciplinary Authority And Divisional Chief, Punjab National Bank, Human Resource Department, Divisional Office, Plot No. 9-A, Near Dic Industrial Area, Dcm Road, Kota-324007 (Rajasthan) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10598/2023 Komal Vaishnav, Daughter Of Shri Gopi Chand Vaishnav, Aged About 24 Years, Permanent Resident Of Village Gaonri Kalan, Post Ahmadpur, Tehsil Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)-322201 - Presently Residing At Nasiya Colony, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)-322201 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, Through Its Chief Manager, Human Resource Department, Circle Office, Plot No. 9A, Near Dic Industrial Area, Dcm Road, Kota (Rajasthan)-324007 2. Disciplinary Authority And Divisional Chief, Punjab National Bank, Human Resource Department, Divisional Office, Plot No. 9A, Near Dic Industrial Area, Dcm Road, Kota (Rajasthan)-324007 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (2 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 24/03/2026 1. These two writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, hence they are tagged together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The writ petitions are filed with the following prayers: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16495/2022 : (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order/notice dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure-23) passed by the Disciplinary Authority respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the condition arbitrary to the effect of possession of graduation and higher qualifications not to be eligible under the head of educational qualification in the advertisement dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-1) and only to the said extent may kindly be declared nullity in the eyes of law and/or it be quashed and set aside. (ii) It is also prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may specifically be commanded to allow the petitioner to work as it is on the post of Peon under the order of appointment dated 18.03.2021 further directing them to pay her salary and other admissible allowances and relief with consequential benefits flowing therefrom. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10598/2023: (i) the action on the part of the respondents proceeding further regarding OBC CasteCertificate of the petitioner and consequent upon the charge-sheet dated [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (3 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] 09.06.2023 may kindly be declared as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement and consequently, the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-21) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) the respondents may specifically be commanded not to proceed further in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 09.06.2023 in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds of the writ petition in Writ Petition No. 16495/2022, submitted that after notice of dismissal dated 28.09.2022, the instant writ petition has been filed. He further submitted that the respondents have invited applications for the post of Peon (Class IV) with the condition that any person who has passed 12th Secondary Education is eligible for appointment, but a graduate or higher qualified person is not eligible for the post. He also submitted that possessing a higher qualification is not bad and the condition prescribing a lower qualification is bad in the eye of law. He also submitted that the condition prescribed in the advertisements dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-1) is not only bad but is a nullity in the eye of law. 4. He also submitted that pursuant to the application form submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon and she has submitted an affidavit with entire information, and herein it is not a case of concealment. He further submitted that without any reason, a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner and without [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (4 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] giving her sufficient opportunity, following proper procedure, and defend herself, an enquiry report has been prepared against the petitioner. 5. He also submitted that now notice dated 28.09.2022, (Annexure-23), has been served upon the petitioner for show cause with a predetermined decision of dismissal from service. He also submitted that the respondents are bent upon to dismiss the petitioner from service, and the petitioner has no other alternative except to seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 709=MANU/SC/1290/2015, and submitted that when a candidate has acquired higher qualification, the same cannot be treated as a disadvantage to employer. He also submitted that if the petitioner is more qualified, then it is an added advantage for the employer, but on this ground alone, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner, on being higher qualified than twelfth and alleging concealment of higher qualification. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10598/2023 has submitted that by filing the current writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the unreasonable, arbitrary, and illegal action of the respondents in proceedings relating to initiation of enquiry regarding the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (5 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] 8. He further submitted that Manisha Vaishnav has filed a Writ Petition No. 5077/2021 to challenge the appointment order of the present petitioner on the ground that petitioner Komal Vaishnav does not belong to OBC category as per the Union List. He further submitted that this writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge Bench on 03.05.2021 and thereafter Manisha Vaishnav has filed D.B. Special Appeal No. 583/2021 and the same was dismissed on 23.08.2022. He further submitted that a review petition was also filed and the same was dismissed on 22.08.2025. 9. He further submitted that after dismissal of the challenge to the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents have no ground to initiate an enquiry against the petitioner. He further referred Annexure-3 (caste certificate) dated 07.03.2021, and submitted that the petitioner belongs to the "Bairagi" community and as per the list of castes included in the Union List (Annexure-5), the entry is at Serial No. 66. He also submitted that on the basis of the declaration and further enquiry by the concerned authority, notice was issued to the petitioner. 10. He further submitted that "Swami" and "Bairagi" both are in the same category and are considered as OBC. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the additional affidavit of the petitioner filed on 30.01.2025 and submitted that while disposing of Review Petition (Writ) No. 186/2022 filed by Manisha Vaishnav, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the caste certificate is cancelled by the competent authority. [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (6 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] 11. He further referred to the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the State Level Committee and submitted that the decision dated 17.05.2022, whereby the caste certificate was cancelled, has been set aside and the matter was remanded back for re-enquiry by the District Committee. He also submitted that since then, the enquiry is pending before the District Level Committee. He also submitted that when the matter is pending before the District Level Committee, and it will take time to conclude. He cannot be said that the petitioner has procured a false or fake certificate under OBC category to secure appointment in the respondent bank. At last, he submitted that the respondents have issued a charge-sheet without any reasonable basis and the same is liable to be set aside till the issue is finally resolved by the District Level Committee. 12. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and she submitted that the respondent is a nationalised bank governed by statute and rules as framed from time to time. She further submitted that the respondent bank has followed the procedure and also the guidelines as issued from time to time, and before proceeding against the petitioner, it has observed the procedure as prescribed under the Rules and also the principles of natural justice. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents in Writ Petition No. 16495/2022 has submitted that the respondent bank has issued an advertisement dated 12.02.2021 inviting applications from eligible candidates who are only 12th pass, [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (7 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] and in the advertisement, it was also made clear that graduate or higher qualified persons are not eligible. She further submitted that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit on 05.03.2021 wherein she has made a statement on oath that her minimum and maximum qualification is 12th pass. She further submitted that the petitioner has specifically stated that she has not passed graduation or any higher qualification from any place. 14. She also submitted that the affidavit was submitted pursuant to the advertisement and the petitioner is bound by the same. She further referred the material placed on record and submitted that the petitioner has passed graduation in year 2019 from University of Kota, Kota and further B.Ed. from Bhagwati Teachers Training College, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhpur in the years 2019–2021. She further submitted that upon notice of higher qualification, a notice was served to the petitioner and a charge-sheet was issued to her. 15. She also submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to participate and defend herself in the enquiry, and after receipt of the enquiry report the petitioner was served notice with proposed punishment. She also submitted that as per bipartite settlement, the petitioner was served notice dated 28.09.2022 with proposed punishment. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents, while placing reliance upon the judgment in Union of India and Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686, submitted that if anyone obtains an appointment order by misrepresentation and [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (8 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] fraud, then the appointment order is tainted and cannot be protected by a court of law. She further referred to the judgment in Chief Manager, PNB & Another vs. Anit Kumar Das MANU/SC/0823/2020, and submitted that a candidate suppressing material information or giving false information cannot claim a right to continue in service. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents in Writ Petition No. 10598/2023 has submitted that the respondent bank has issued a show cause notice on the basis of complaint and further facts brought to the notice of the bank. She also submitted that after reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge- sheet was issued, to which the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply. She further submitted that the respondent bank, after considering the reply, has appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry. 18. She also submitted that the original caste certificate issued to the petitioner has already been cancelled by the issuing authority and the material submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient to quash the charge-sheet. At last, she submitted that the bank is a Government of India undertaking and is governed by the Union List to implement reservation policy. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Writ Petition No. 16495/2022: 20. The respondent bank has issued an advertisement dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for the post of Peon in its various branches. The qualification as on [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (9 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] 01.01.2021 (prescribed as per the advertisement) was minimum and maximum 12th pass, and it was specifically mentioned that a graduate or higher qualified candidate is not eligible. The petitioner has filed an application and was appointed by the respondent bank at Branch Gangapur City. On request of the petitioner, permission for further study was granted, but an anonymous complaint was made against the petitioner to the respondent bank. Thereafter, on enquiry, it came to the notice of the bank that the petitioner has passed graduation from Agarwal Girls College, Sawai Madhopur as private candidate, and B.Ed. from Bhagwati Teachers Training College, Gangapur City,. 21. The petitioner was served a show cause notice and, after receipt of reply, a charge-sheet was issued for enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, and notice dated 28.09.2022 was issued to the petitioner with proposed punishment. The petitioner has challenged the same. 22. In the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (supra), the issue was whether a candidate was qualified as per the prescribed qualification in the J&K Service Gazetteed Recruitment Rules, 1970. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the candidate possessing higher qualification than the required qualification, is suitable for the post and same is not disadvantageous. 23. In the present case, the advertisement clearly indicated that a person qualified as graduate or more is not eligible. [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (10 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] Admittedly, the petitioner was qualified as a graduate on the date of submission of the application form for the post of Peon. The condition mentioned in the advertisement makes it clear that a person who is higher qualified is not eligible for consideration on the post of Peon. 24. The petitioner has challenged the condition of the advertisement only after she has been appointed on the post and found guilty of misconduct by the enquiry officer in departmental proceedings. The purpose of challenge is evident from the conduct and intention of the petitioner, which appears to be only to protect the job secured by her on assertion that her minimum and maximum qualification is 12th pass. 25. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 05.03.2021, which is reproduced as under: 'kiFk&i= eSa dksey oS".ko mez 22 lky iq= Jh xksihpan oS".ko fuoklh ufl;k dkWyksuh] xaxkiqj flVh ftyk lokbZ ek/kksiqj jkt0 cgYQ c;ku djrh gw¡ fd%& 1- eSa iatkc us'kuy cSad e.My dk;kZy; dksVk }kjk vf/kuLFk lEoxZ esa pijklh in ij HkrhZ gsrq jkstxkj foKfIr@lwpuk dks HkyhHkkafr i<+ o le>dj ds mDr in ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA 2- mDr foKfIr@lwpuk esa of.kZr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk tks fd U;wure ,oa vf/kdre d{kk 12 oh mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gSA eSa ;g ?kksf"kr djrh gw¡ fd esjh U;wure ,oa vf/kdre 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 12oh mRrh.kZ gSA ,oa eSaus dgha ls Hkh Lukrd ;k led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ugha dh gSA [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (11 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] 3- mDr foKfIr@lwpuk esa of.kZr lHkh ik=rk@ekin.Mksa dks eSa iw.kZ djrh gw¡A vkSj ;fn esjs }kjk nh xbZ dksbZ Hkh tkudkjh xyr ik;h tkrh gS rks esjh fu;qfDr fujLr dh tk ldrh gSA fnukad%& 05-03-2021 gLrk{kj LFkku& xaxkiqj flVh 'kiFkdrkZ 26. In the case of Chief Manager, PNB vs. Anit Kumar Das (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a candidate who has suppressed material information or given false information cannot claim a right to continue in service. The petitioner was found ineligible as per the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. 27. The issue relating to specific qualification for the post of Peon has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in said judgment. In the present case also, the petitioner has participated in the selection process as per the eligibility criteria and secured appointment. It is only upon an anonymous complaint that the enquiry was conducted and the facts came to the notice of the bank. The judgment in case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (supra) is in respect of different context and not application upon the facts of the case. 28. In view of the law laid down in Chief Manager, PNB vs. Anit Kumar Das (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief with regard to notice dated 28.09.2022. The petitioner has no right to challenge the condition of the advertisement dated 12.02.2021 after having participated in [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (12 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] the selection process without raising any objection and the writ petition sans merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 10598/2023: 29. The issue pertains to issuance of OBC caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. The material on record indicates that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was challenged by Manisha Vaishnav by filing SBCWP No. 5077/2021, which was dismissed on 03.05.2021. Thereafter, D.B. Special Appeal No. 583/2021 was filed by her and was dismissed on 23.08.2022. A review petition No. 186/2022 was also filed, which was dismissed on 22.08.2025, but by the time the caste certificate was cancelled after enquiry by the District Committee. 30. The material on record further indicates that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Level Committee, but thereafter, on an appeal preferred by the petitioner, an order dated 16.04.2024 was passed and after setting aside the decision of District Level Committee, the matter was remanded back to the District Level Authority for fresh consideration. The District Level Authority is seized with the matter and is at liberty to decide the issue. 31. As regards the complaint and charge-sheet, it is an admitted position that the Court ordinarily cannot interfere in disciplinary proceedings, as the petitioner has yet to face enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. In case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Singh reported as 2024 INSC 592, Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the [2026:RJ-JP:12485] (13 of 13) [CW-16495/2022] scope of Article 226 of Constitution of India in dealing with departmental enquiries. 32. Considering the settled position of law, this Court cannot interfere by holding that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is contrary to law. It is well settled that the Court cannot interfere or substitute its own decision in place of the disciplinary authority. 33. As regard to petitioner is concerned, if the petitioner belongs to a caste which has been listed as one of the caste in OBC Category in Union List then obviously petitioner is entitled for protection but same is required to be considered only when the proceedings are decided by the District Level Authority. As on today, the matter is in the Court of District Level Authority. The petitioner has no right to claim protection only on ground that there was delay in fact finding enquiry by the District Level Authority. 34. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for interference to stale the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, therefore the petitioner has no right to challenge the charge-sheet issued to her. 35. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petitions Nos. 16495/2022 and 10598/2023 are hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 36. No order as to cost. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /220-221