Pankaj Kumar Goswami vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 17 April, 2026

April 21, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Pankaj Kumar Goswami vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 17 April, 2026

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the communication dated
20th September, 2021, whereby Punjab National Bank [“the Bank”]
cancelled the Petitioner’s provisional appointment to the post of Manager
(Risk), MMGS-II.

SPONSORED

Factual Background

2. The recruitment arose out of an advertisement dated 7th September,
2020 issued for 535 Specialist Officer posts, including 160 posts of Manager
(Risk). For the said post, the advertisement prescribed, apart from
educational qualifications, a minimum of one year of post-qualification
experience in “Banks/PSU/Corporate High Value Credit/NBFC”. The note

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 1 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
appended to the eligibility conditions further stipulated that such experience
had to be “post qualification in the relevant field, Full time, & as a
permanent employee”.

3. The Petitioner applied for the said post, appeared in the online
examination, and was provisionally shortlisted for interview by e-mail dated
22nd January, 2021. Thereafter, he received an offer of appointment dated 5 th
March, 2021. The said offer expressly stipulated that the appointment was
provisional and remained subject, inter alia, to fulfilment of the eligibility
criteria under the Bank’s notification dated 7th September, 2020, and
submission of “valid educational and professional qualification certificates
as specified in your application and requisite experience certificate
(wherever applicable), acceptable to the bank”. The offer further required
the Petitioner to report at the Punjab National Bank Staff Training College,
Noida on 30th March, 2021 for completing joining formalities. Acting on the
offer, the Petitioner resigned from his then employment with Randstad India
Pvt. Ltd. on 10th March, 2021 and was relieved on 22nd March, 2021.

4. On 23rd April, 2021, the Bank wrote to the Petitioner stating that his
appointment was provisional and that, on scrutiny, two aspects were noted.
First, the Bank recorded that at the time of interview the Petitioner had
submitted an “M.B.A. certificate (without any specialization)”. Second, it
recorded that, in support of work experience, the Petitioner had submitted an
experience certificate from Randstad India Pvt. Ltd., described in the
communication as a “placement agency”. The Petitioner was called upon to
furnish documents within fifteen days to satisfy the Bank that he possessed
the essential educational qualification and the necessary post-qualification
work experience for the post. The said communication reads as under:

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 2 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
“Date:-23-04-2021
REGISTERED/SPEED POST
2201000008
MR. PANKAJ KUMAR GOSWAMI
S/O MR. SATYANARAYAN GOSWAMI
VPO RAGHUNATHGARH
TEH SIKAR
SIKAR
RAJASTHAN – 332037
[email protected]
Sir/Madam,

Reg.: Your appointment for the post of Manager (Risk) in MMG Scale-II

This is in reference to our letter dated 05.03.2021 on the captioned
subject, vide which you were informed about your provisional selection for
the post of Manager (Risk) in our Bank in response to your application,
subsequent written test and interview on the terms and conditions mentioned
therein.

It was mentioned in the offer letter dated 05.03.2021 that your
appointment is provisional subject to meeting, inter alia, the following
criterion apart from other terms and conditions mentioned therein:

a) Meeting the eligibility criteria as prescribed under Bank’s
notification dated 07.09.2020.

b) Submission of required valid educational and professional
qualification certificates as specified in your application and require
experience certificate (wherever applicable), acceptable to the Bank.

In this regard, it is observed that:

Essential educational qualification for the post of Manager (Risk)
was prescribed as Bachelor/Master in Math/Statistics/Economics/ or
FRM/PRM/DITRM/MBA (Finance)/CA/ICWA/CFA/PGDFM of 60% in
aggregate as per the advertisement/notification dated 07.09.2020.

However, at the time of interview in support of minimum educational
qualification, the following documents have been submitted by you:

• M.B.A. Certificate (without any specialization)

Essential Post qualification work experience & other stipulations for
the post of Manager (Risk) were prescribed as Minimum 1 year of post-
qualification experience in Banks/PSU/Corporate High Value Credit/NBFC
in related field as per the advertisement/notification dated 07.09.2020.

However, at the time of interview in support of minimum post

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 3 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
qualification work experience, the following documents have been
submitted:

• Experience certificate from Randstad India Pvt Ltd (Placement
agency)

On scrutiny of documents submitted by you, it is observed that you
have pursued MBA (without any specialization) which does not
meet/support minimum desired educational qualification for the captioned
post. Also the post qualification work experience does not meet/support the
desired work experience in the relevant field.

As such you are advised to submit copies of necessary
documents/certificates to satisfy the Bank that you possess necessary
essential educational qualifications and necessary post qualification work
experience as notified for the post of Manager (Risk) as per advertisement
within 15 days of receipt of this letter in order to consider your candidature.

You are advised to take note that if we do not receive the desired
documents/certificates establishing your minimum educational qualification
and post qualification work experience required for confirming your
eligibility for the post of Manager (Risk) within 15 days from the date of this
letter, your candidature will be cancelled without any further notice to
you.”

5. The Petitioner responded by e-mail dated 6th May, 2021 and again on
25th May, 2021, forwarding his educational and work-experience documents.
These included a course completion certificate stating that he had completed
a two-year full-time MBA with specialization in Finance; a certificate from
HDFC Asset Management Company Limited stating that he was an
employee of Randstad India Pvt. Ltd. deputed to HDFC Asset Management
Company Ltd.; and a Randstad certificate stating that he was working with
Randstad and was deputed to HDFC Asset Management Company Limited
in the capacity of Resident Manager. The Randstad certificate also described
the duties handled by him.

6. The matter thereafter culminated in the impugned communication
dated 20th September, 2021. The said communication refers to the
provisional offer dated 5th March, 2021, reiterates that the appointment was

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 4 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
subject to fulfilment of the eligibility criteria under the notification dated 7 th
September, 2020, and records that, upon consideration of the documents
produced by the Petitioner, his post-qualification work experience did not
meet the prescribed criteria for the post of Manager (Risk). On that basis, the
offer of appointment was cancelled. The said communication reads as
follows:

“Date: 20-09-2021
REGISTERED/SPEED POST

ROLL No. 2201000008
MR. PANKAJ KUMAR GOSWAMI
S/O SH. SATYANARAYAN GOSWAMI
VPO RAGHUNATHGARH
SIKAR
RAJASTHAN-332037

Madam/Sir,

Reg.: Your selection for the post of MANAGER (RISK).in MMGS-11
This is in reference to our offer of appointment letter dated
05.03.2021 on the captioned subject, vide which you were informed about
your provisional selection for the post of MANAGER (RISK) in our Bank. It
was specifically mentioned under clause f(i) of offer of appointment that
your appointment is provisional subject to meeting the eligibility criteria as
prescribed under Bank’s notification dated 07.09.2020 for the post offered.

On perusing the documents produced by you, It has been observed
that your Post qualification work experience does not meet/support the
requisite Post qualification work experience criteria as prescribed in
advertisement dated 07-09-2020, for the post of MANAGER (RISK).

It has therefore been decided to cancel the offer of appointement
dated 05-03-2021 issued to vou. Please note that no further correspondence
in this regard shall be entertained by the Bank

Thanking You” [SIC]

7. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C)
14233/2021. The said petition was withdrawn on 5 th December, 2025 with
liberty to file afresh with better particulars and after impleading the
necessary parties.

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 5 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

8. In support of the petition, Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, counsel for the
Petitioner, makes the following submissions:

8.1. The Bank’s action of cancelling the Petitioner’s candidature and
appointment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to law. The Petitioner
possesses the requisite post-qualification experience in the domain of risk
analysis while working with HDFC Asset Management Company Limited,
and therefore, the Bank’s conclusion that he lacks the requisite experience is
factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.
8.2. The impugned communication dated 20th September, 2021 is non-

speaking and vague, as it does not disclose any reasons as to how the
Petitioner’s experience fails to meet the prescribed criteria.
8.3. The Petitioner was permitted to participate in the entire selection
process and was issued an appointment letter after due verification of his
documents. Acting on the said offer, he resigned from his previous
employment. The Petitioner had a legitimate expectation of appointment,
and the subsequent cancellation has caused grave and irreversible prejudice,
as he has lost his prior employment and alternative opportunities. In this
regard, reliance is placed on GNCTD of Delhi & Ors. v. Naresh Kumar1.
8.4. Similarly situated candidates, possessing comparable experience, have
been granted appointment, rendering the impugned action discriminatory
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8.5. Reliance placed by the Bank on Vikrant Singh Gangwar v. Punjab
National Bank & Anr.2 is misplaced, as the said case turned on absence of

1
W.P.(C) No. 4769/2010.

LPA 458/2021 (decided on 16th August, 2022).

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 6 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

8.6. A substantial number of vacancies in the post of Manager (Risk)
continue to remain unfilled, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to
the Bank if the Petitioner is granted appointment.

Respondents’ contentions

9. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, counsel for the Bank,
controverts the above contentions and submits as follows:

9.1. The Petitioner does not fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria,
inasmuch as his post-qualification work experience does not meet the
requirements stipulated in the recruitment notification. The advertisement
clearly required that a candidate must possess post-qualification work
experience in Banks/PSU/Corporate High Value Credit/NBFC, in the
relevant field.

9.2. The experience certificate relied upon by the Petitioner indicates that
he was an employee of Randstad India Private Limited, which is a
placement agency, and not of any Bank, PSU, or NBFC. His engagement
with HDFC Asset Management Company Limited was only by way of
deputation/placement through the said agency. In such circumstances, the
Petitioner’s work profile during such deployment cannot be treated as
satisfying the requirement of post-qualification experience in the relevant
field, as contemplated under the recruitment notification.
9.3. The determination as to whether a candidate meets the prescribed
qualifications and experience is within the domain of the employer. Reliance
is placed on Vikrant Singh Gangwar to contend that the Court cannot
substitute its own view for that of the Bank in such matters. Unless the

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 7 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
decision of the employer is shown to be perverse or wholly arbitrary, the
Court ought not to interfere, and the assessment of eligibility must be left to
the discretion of the Bank.

Analysis

10. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The impugned
cancellation order does not proceed on the footing that the Petitioner lacked
the requisite educational qualification. It proceeds solely on the ground that
he did not possess the prescribed post-qualification experience. Once that is
so, the petition can succeed only if the material placed on record
unmistakably satisfies the experience criterion, or if the Bank’s contrary
conclusion is shown to be perverse, irrational, or unsupported by the record.
The controversy, therefore, turns substantially on the terms of the
recruitment notice, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

11. The Petitioner’s own documents do not show that he was appointed
by HDFC Asset Management Company Ltd. in its own cadre, or that he held
a regular position in a Bank, PSU, corporate high value credit institution, or
NBFC in the manner contemplated by the advertisement. Instead, reliance is
placed on a certificate issued by Randstad India Pvt. Ltd., which records that

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 8 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
the Petitioner was its employee and was deputed to HDFC Asset
Management Company Ltd. The certificate issued by Randstad India Pvt.
Ltd. is reproduced below for ease of reference:

“To whomsoever it may concern

This is to certify that Mr. Pankaj Kumar Goswami was working with
Randstad India Private Limited and was deputed to HDFC Asset
Management Company Limited in the capacity of Resident Manager and
was based out at Ajmer location.

Please be advised of the following regarding the employment of Mr. Pankaj
Kumar Goswami at Randstad India Private Limited.

Period of Employment: February 27, 2018 to March 22, 2021

The key responsibilities handled are:

• To develop and increase market share through distribution network i.e.
through IFA’s, National distributors, regional distributors and banks to
acquire new investors
• Acquiring corporate clients / non-individual clients
• Analysing and conceptualizing information and market situations through
risk analysis etc.
• Provide information about HDFC MF schemes & promote HDFC MF
schemes
• Provide information on special promotions / New Mutual Fund offerings
• Convey distributor requests for information or servicing requirements to
Branch Manager
• Organize events/sessions for distributors

Should you require any additional information, please get in touch with
[email protected].

With best regards,
For Randstad India Pvt Ltd.,
Sd/-

Authorized Signature”

12. The aforenoted certificate states in express terms that the Petitioner
was “working with Randstad India Private Limited” who was “deputed” to
HDFC Asset Management Company Limited. The relieving letter also

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 9 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
shows that the Petitioner’s employer was Randstad India Private Limited.
The record, therefore, does not establish direct employment with HDFC
Asset Management Company Ltd.; rather, it reflects an outsourced
deployment through a staffing agency.

13. The Petitioner may be right in pointing out that the certificate
attributes to him certain functions, including “analysing and conceptualizing
information and market situations through risk analysis etc.” However, that
by itself is not determinative. Recruitment law does not proceed on isolated
expressions extracted from a certificate, but on whether the employer could
reasonably regard the candidate’s overall engagement as satisfying the
eligibility conditions as framed. The description in the certificate reflects a
role centred around distribution networks, client acquisition, promotion of
mutual fund schemes, and related functions. The reference to “risk analysis”

appears in that context and does not compel the Bank to treat such
engagement as equivalent to the prescribed experience for the post of
Manager (Risk).

14. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the recruitment process. The
essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to
determine, having regard to the nature of duties and the needs of the
institution. The Court cannot lay down conditions of eligibility, nor can it
undertake an interpretive re-writing of the recruitment notice to treat what
does not strictly meet the prescribed criteria as “equivalent”. Where the
terms of the advertisement are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over
them or substitute its own assessment for that of the employer. In the
absence of ambiguity or illegality in the prescription itself, it is not open to
the Court, in the exercise of judicial review, to assume the role of the

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 10 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26
appointing authority and decide what should be treated as sufficient
experience. These principles stand authoritatively stated in Maharashtra
Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade3.

15. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vikrant Singh
Gangwar also supports this approach. In that case, the Court upheld the
cancellation of a provisional appointment to the same post on the ground
that the candidate did not satisfy the prescribed requirement of experience in
the “relevant field”. The Division Bench, upon consideration of the record,
declined to interfere with the Bank’s assessment of the candidate’s work
profile and its conclusion regarding ineligibility. The decision thus affirms
that the evaluation of whether the nature of experience meets the recruitment
criteria lies primarily with the employer, and interference is not warranted
unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary or without basis. The distinction
sought to be drawn by the Petitioner does not materially detract from the
applicability of this principle.

16. The plea that the impugned communication is non-speaking does not
merit acceptance. While the order is brief, it clearly records the basis of
cancellation, namely that the Petitioner’s post-qualification work experience
does not meet the prescribed criteria. In the context of a recruitment
decision, such articulation cannot be said to be so deficient as to warrant
interference.

17. The contention regarding discrimination, based on alleged
appointment of similarly situated candidates, is also unsubstantiated. No
specific material has been placed on record to demonstrate that candidates
with identical qualifications and experience, particularly those deployed

3
(2019) 6 SCC 362.

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 11 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

18. The plea of legitimate expectation also does not carry the Petitioner
any further. The doctrine has a recognised field, but it cannot operate
contrary to the express terms governing the appointment. The offer of
appointment in the present case was expressly provisional and subject to
fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility criteria and submission of documents
acceptable to the Bank. Where the offer itself makes the appointment
conditional upon verification, no enforceable right arises merely because the
candidate was permitted to participate in the selection process or was issued
a provisional offer. It is well settled that inclusion in a select list, or even
selection, does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment. In
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India4, the Supreme Court held that even
where vacancies exist and candidates are found suitable, no such right
accrues. Further, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override clear
stipulations governing recruitment, nor can it be invoked to compel a
decision contrary to the governing conditions. In the present case, the
express terms of the offer itself negate any such expectation. The doctrine
does not fetter the decision-maker where the governing framework justifies
the action taken, and judicial review is confined to examining whether such
action is arbitrary or irrational.5

19. The submission regarding availability of vacancies also does not
advance the Petitioner’s case. The existence of vacancies cannot justify
appointment of a candidate who does not satisfy the prescribed eligibility
conditions.

(1991) 3 SCC 47.

See: Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India (1999) 4 SCC 727.

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 12 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26

20. This Court does not understate the prejudice suffered by the
Petitioner, who resigned from his earlier employment upon receipt of the
provisional offer. That consequence is unfortunate. However, hardship by
itself cannot compel the Court to direct appointment contrary to the
recruitment conditions. At the same time, it is clarified that this order will
not preclude the Petitioner from pursuing such remedies as may be available
in law for any alleged loss or damage arising from the events in question, if
so advised.

21. There is also no procedural unfairness warranting interference. The
Bank did not cancel the offer without notice. By its communication dated
23rd April, 2021, it pointed out the perceived deficiencies, granted an
opportunity to furnish supporting documents, and thereafter took a decision
upon consideration of the material placed on record.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with
the impugned communication dated 20th September, 2021. The Bank’s
conclusion that the Petitioner did not satisfy the prescribed post-qualification
experience requirement cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse, or
unsupported by the record.

23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, along with pending
applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 17, 2026
nk

W.P.(C) 5108/2026 Page 13 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:30:26

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Pankaj Kumar Goswami vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 17 April, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders