Pankaj Kandpal v. Chairman/ Chief Managing Dirctor

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

WPSB/288/2017

Pankaj Kandpal

… Petitioner Versus Chairman/ Chief Managing Director

… Respondent Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

¶1None present for the petitioner.

¶2Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank.

¶3According to petitioner, he participated in a selection for appointment to the post of Marketing Officer – Scale II held in terms of an advertisement issued by Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. According to him, he was declared successful in the said selection, however, appointment was not offered to him.

¶4By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Marketing Officer Scale II as per their office letter no. NJGB/HO/HRD/2810 dated 14.03.2017 from the date when pre-appointment formalities were completed by the petitioner;

(ii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondents No. 4 to produce all the relevant documents by which its two year full-time Post Graduate Diploma in Management has been equated with Masters of Business Administration

(MBA) degree by Govt. Of India/approved by Govt. Regulatory bodies;

¶5A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Radhakrishna Gupta, General Manager, Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank. Para 5 to 10 of counter affidavit are extracted below:-

"5. That after being successful in the written test and interview The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14.03.2017 his selection and for completing the terms and conditions of the Bank.

¶6That vide letter dated

21.03.2017 petitioner was directed to produce the proof regarding his MBA degree and experience proof. In this regard true copy of letter dated

21.03.2017 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no CA 1 to this Counter Affidavit.

¶7That in response the petitioner supplied the certificate of Post Graduate Diploma in Management completed from Institute of Technology and Science, Ghaziabad.

¶8That again vide letter dated 01.06.2017 the petitioner was informed that the petitioner should submit his Degree issued by recognized University but the petitioner failed to do so. In this regard true copy of the letter dated 01.06.2017 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no CA 2 to this Counter Affidavit.

¶9That again the petitioner vide his undated letter, which was received in the respondents office on 12.06.2017 informed that the petitioner has done MBA/PGDM from the Institute of Technology and Science, Ghaziabad in the year 2013. However, the petitioner failed to produce the MBA degree.

¶10That as the petitioner has failed to submit any poof regarding his educational qualification, that the petitioner is Graduate from a recognized University, therefore, the respondents, in absence of the prescribed required minimum qualification being held by the petitioner, did not offered appointment to the petitioner."

¶6Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that since petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he possesses MBA Degree and also did not submit any certificate regarding experience and he only

supplied a certificate of having passed Post-Graduate Diploma in Management from Institute of Technology & Science, Ghaziabad, therefore, appointment was not offered to him. He further submits that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, as the selection was for appointment in Regional Gramin Bank situate in Indore (Madhya Pradesh).

¶7We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent–Bank. Petitioner himself is to be blamed for not submitting proof regarding his educational qualification as well as experience. We also find substance in the contention that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction, since the respondent Bank is situate in State of Madhya Pradesh. Merely, because petitioner is a resident of State of Uttarakhand will not give jurisdiction to this Court.

¶8For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

02.07.2026

Aswal

NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9 802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F 5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.02 06:18:43 -07'00'