Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 22 February, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (Circuit Bench at Jammu) Order reserved on: 15.02.2017 TRANSFERRED APPLICATION N0. 062/00011/2015 (SWP No. 204/2014 & IA No. 277 of 2014) Chandigarh, this the 22nd day of February, 2017 CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) & HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A) Ashok Kumar aged 62 years son of late Shri Des Raj r/o Nagroota District Kathua, presently posted at GE 969 EWS C/o 56 APO Baramulla Kashmir. .APPLICANT (Argued by: Shri Basit M. Kang, Advocate) VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Service (MES), Army HQ, New Delhi C/O 56 APO . 3. Chief Engineer, Headquarters 133, Works Engineers C/o 56 APO. 4. Garrison Engineer 969 Engr. Wks Sec (EWS) C/o 56 APO. .RESPONDENTS (By Advocate: Shri Harshwardhan Gupta) ORDER
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A) This matter has been received on transfer from the Honble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar, where the applicant had filed SWP 204 of 2014 seeking quashing of order dated 23.1.2014 (Annexure D) passed by the respondents whereby the applicants appointment for the post of Mate (SSK) was cancelled with immediate effect on the ground that the applicants educational certificate (10th Class) cannot be given equivalence for employment in MES department because this certificate has been issued by Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi which does not appear in the list of members of Council of Boards of School Education (COBSE) nor in the list of recognized Boards of School Education of the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India.
2. The Honble High Court stayed this order on 7.02.2014 and then on 4.6.2014 passed an order transferring the petition of the applicant to this Tribunal for adjudication.
3. The relevant facts in this regard are that in response to an advertisement issued in December 2011 by the respondent department for several posts including the post of Storekeeper Grade-II (SK-I) the applicant applied and based on his claimed qualification and OBC status he was offered an appointment on 20.3.2013 (Annexure B) with direction to join duty in the respective place of posting that was (Baramulla) on or before 22.4.2013. The advertisement, which is at (Annexure R-6) prescribes the minimum essential qualification for the post of Storekeeper (Grade-II) as follows:-
Matriculation or equivalent examination from recognized University/Board It is the contention of the respondents that at the time of verification of his educational qualification certificate they came to realize that the Matriculation Examination certificate which the applicant was possessing was not issued by a recognized Board as was the requirement in the advertisement. The applicant had passed the Matriculation Examination as a private student from a School namely Ganpati Public Sr. Sec. School, located in Vill. Bariar, Distt. Gurdaspur ( hereinafter referred to as School) . He appeared as a private candidate in 10th Class Examination in October, 2009 and according to certificate dated 25.10.2013 given by this School (page 24 of the paper-book) the applicant passed the 10th Class Examination under Roll No. 621622 in March-April 2010 session through Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi and his result was declared on 19.06.2010. The letter dated 25.10.2013, which is a certificate with regard to the applicants participation in the 10th Class Examination as a private candidate mentions in its letter head that the same school is affiliated to CSE Mohali. It is also noted that the applicant is resident of Nagroota, District Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir and he appeared in the Matric Examination as a private candidate in Gurdaspur District of Punjab. It is the claim of the applicant that when he had appeared in Class 10th Examination from Village Bariar, District Gurdaspur, the school was affiliated with the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. The same certificate from this School also mentions that since October 2010 Delhi State Govt. closed this Board. However, at the time of applicants 10th Class Examination as a private candidate the Board was in existence because the applicant had appeared in session March- April 2010. The applicant has also relied upon a letter dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure E page 15 of the paper-book) which seems to be an information obtained under RTI Act, 2005 addressed to one Sunil Kumar, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar. This letter mentions with reference to your letter No. Nil dated 20.6.2009 recognition of Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is a Certified Institute from 28th February, 1964. This letter has been signed by a person mentioned as Bata Kishore Roy, Under Secretary of the Govt. of India Tel. NO. 23081783). The note below this letter mentions copy of information already sent to Education, Secretaries of all the State Governments/ Union Territory Governments/Administrative Departments (NIOS, CBSE, New Delhi) and Registrar of all Universities.
4. To sum up, the case of the applicant is that his School was affiliated with Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi in 2010 and that this Board was recognized by Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India. The second claim of the applicant is based on the letter issued on 29.6.2009 (ibid) long before the applicants appointment was cancelled and addressed to somebody whose relationship with the present applicant has not been revealed by the applicant.
5. The respondents in their written statement have stated that the applicant was offered appointment under the bona fide impression that he possesses the essential educational qualifications i.e. Matriculation from a recognized Board/University and that he belongs to OBC category. The appointment letter in paragraphs (h) & (o) abundantly makes it clear that his appointment is provisional subject to verification of his documents and on their being found authentic. Initially they relied upon the certificate given by this School, however, when they discovered that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi does not appear in the list of members of COBSE and in the list of recognized Boards of School Education of the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, as per terms and conditions laid down in the appointment letter, cancelled his appointment. They contend that there is no necessity of issuing a show cause notice to him because verification of his educational qualifications was part of condition of his appointment.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have carefully perused the documents produced by the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter.
7. Obviously, there are two aspects that need consideration. First is whether the School from where the applicant has passed his 10th Class Examination as a private student in March - April 2010 was affiliated to Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi at that point of time or not and the next important issue is whether the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is a recognized Board or not? There does not seem much dispute about the fact that the applicant had appeared as private student in Class 10th Examination from School. However, the Board namely the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi to which School claimed affiliation is recognized as a legitimate Board is the issue that requires our attention. The applicant has not contested that a Board to be recognized should be a member of COBSE or should be in the list of recognized Boards of School Education of the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. The applicant has also not contested the claim of the respondents that the said Board does not appear in the list of Members of COBSE. He is relying on the letter issued way back in 2009 (Annexure E page 15 of the paper-book) in response to a RTI query by someone who is not apparently related to the applicant. We are not convinced about the acceptability of this letter as a conclusive proof. First of all this is a letter issued in response to some letter written by one Sunil Kumar, 7-J-18 Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar seeking information under RTI Act, 2005. It is not clear as to how the applicant has got copy of this letter and when? We also have serious doubts about the authenticity of this letter. Going through the language and the endorsement of this letter to Education Secretaries of all State Governments, Union Territory Governments/Administrative Departments, ( NIOS, CBSE New Delhi) and Registrars of all Universities, as such endorsements are not the usual practice in response to RTI applications raises doubts in one minds. Since, applicant is claiming that he has passed 10th class examination from a recognized Board, the applicant has to conclusively establish such a case. In our view, the applicant has failed to do so. His claim that the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi was closed by Delhi State Govt. in October 2010 is based entirely on the certificate given by the School. There is no other evidence documentary or otherwise to corroborate this fact. Therefore, we are reluctant to accept this contention of the applicant.
8. As regards the arguments of the applicant that there was a legal requirement of issuing the show cause notice to him before cancelling his appointment, we are clearly of the view that the appointment letter envisages appointment on verifications of the documents submitted by the applicant. Once his documents relating to educational qualifications were found to be dubious and unacceptable, the respondents cancelled the appointment. In our view, the respondents have not committed any legal impropriety in cancelling his appointment without giving any notice.
9. Seen in the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to establish authenticity of his class 10th class educational qualifications beyond doubt and respondents have correctly cancelled his appointment. The O.A. therefore fails to succeed and is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay order granted by the Honble High Court shall, as a natural consequence, become infructuous.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) MEMBER (A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated: 22 .02.2017 `SK 1 (TA No. 062/00011/2015 )