Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking To Restrain PSBs From Disqualifying Candidates For Past Misconduct, Upholds Autonomy In Recruitment Policy
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar dismissed a writ petition seeking to prevent public sector banks from disqualifying applicants for prior disciplinary misconduct and to compel consideration of a candidate’s application despite earlier removal from service. The Court held that public sector banks are autonomous employers entitled to frame their own eligibility and disqualification conditions, and that the absence of a uniform Government of India directive does not, by itself, make such conditions arbitrary. It further stated that judicial intervention in recruitment policy is limited and would arise only where a specific condition is shown to be discriminatory or constitutionally invalid.
The writ petition was instituted by an individual who had earlier been employed with a regional rural bank and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings culminating in an order of removal from service. The removal order expressly recorded that such removal would not operate as a disqualification for future employment. Prior to the disciplinary order, the petitioner had applied pursuant to a recruitment advertisement issued by a public sector bank. His candidature was subsequently rejected on the ground of past disciplinary action and removal from service.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction seeking two reliefs: a direction to the Union of India to restrain public sector banks from incorporating disqualification clauses in recruitment advertisements based on past misconduct or disciplinary punishment, and a consequential direction to the recruiting bank to consider his candidature with retrospective effect.
The petitioner relied upon responses received under the Right to Information Act from various authorities, including the banking regulator, to contend that no centralized rule, circular, or notification existed imposing a permanent bar on future employment of persons who had undergone disciplinary punishment. He also relied on a service regulation applicable to his previous employer which stated that removal from service would not be a disqualification for future employment. Constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 16, 20(2), and 21 were invoked in support of the challenge.
The Court recorded at the outset that “the relief sought by the petitioner is sweeping in nature.” It observed that a direction restraining all public sector banks from prescribing disqualification clauses would amount to “judicially mandating uniformity in recruitment policy across diverse banking institutions.”
The Court noted that public sector banks, though instrumentalities of the State, are “distinct legal entities with separate boards, service regulations, and recruitment process,” and that “policy choices in matters of recruitment, including prescription of eligibility criteria and disqualifications, lie primarily within the domain of the employer.”
On the absence of centralized instructions, the Court stated that “the mere absence of a uniform instruction issued by the Government of India does not ipso facto render a recruitment condition adopted by a bank arbitrary or unconstitutional.” It further observed that any constitutional scrutiny must be “advertisement-specific and rules-specific.”
The Court recorded that the petitioner had “not placed on record the recruitment rules or advertisement of the respondent bank, nor made a substantial challenge to the same,” and therefore “the Court cannot embark upon an abstract adjudication.”
Addressing the argument that removal from service should have no future civil consequences, the Court stated that “service jurisprudence recognizes a distinction between the penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings and the employer’s assessment of suitability and antecedents in fresh recruitment.” It clarified that a regulation stating removal shall not be a disqualification “only means that the employee is not rendered legally ineligible to seek employment elsewhere.”
On suitability, the Court observed that “antecedents, integrity, and past conduct are legitimate considerations, especially in banking institutions, which deal with public funds.”
The plea of double jeopardy was rejected with the observation that “Article 20(2) of the Constitution has no application to disciplinary proceedings or to administrative decisions relating to recruitment,” and that denial of appointment “does not amount to a second punishment.”
The Court recorded that “no mandamus can be issued in the absence of a specific challenge to a recruitment advertisement or rule.” The petitioner was essentially seeking “a declaration of general law that past disciplinary punishment can never be a ground of disqualification in recruitment by public sector banks,” which was held to be impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“The petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, or unconstitutionality warranting interference,” and accordingly “the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs,” and that “rule is discharged.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil A. Nugurwar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul B. Bagul, Standing Counsel for Union of India
Case Title: Kapil s/o Ashok Nugurwar v Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AUG:2105-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 15495 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar
