Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P.V. Chander Rao And Ors. vs The Singareni Colleries Company ... on 6 September, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(3)ALT681
JUDGMENT V. Sivaraman Nair, J.
1. The two petitioners in W.P.No. 8333/91 commenced service in the respondent Company on 16-6-76 and January, 1981, respectively as Badli Fillers. Thy were matriculates. They have been confirmed in that category. Petitioners claim that they were assigned clerical duties whenever occasions arose thereafter. They submit that they have graduated from Mythili University in the year 1987.
2. The four petitioners in W.P.No. 8524/91 commenced service in the respondent's Company as Badli Fillers on 9-3-82,14-10-86, 30-9-85 and 21-10-86 respectively. All the petitioners were matriculates. All of them have been confirmed in the respective categories, they claim that they were officiating as clerks whenever such arrangement became necessary. Petitioners graduated from Mythili University in the year 1987. They submit that they thus became eligible to apply for appointment as Clerk-Grade .II.
3. On 23-2-1988 respondents issued a notification inviting applications for appointment as clerks-Grade-II. Qualification necessary for the candidates was notified to be graduation in Arts/Science/Commerce of any recognised University. Petitioners applied pursuant to that notification. By orders dt. 16-5-1988/21-6-1988 they were appointed as Clerks-Grade. II, since they had succeeded in the tests and interview. On 27-10-88 they were charge-sheeted for misconduct under Clause 16(2) of the Standing Orders of the Company, for having committed fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of the Company, their services were terminated thereafter by order dt. 5-4-1989. Petitioners challenged their dismissal in Writ Petition Nos. 6782/89 and 7752/ 89. The matter was heard at some length and was about to be allowed. At that stage, respondents took time to reconsider the matter, thereafter, fresh orders were passed on 21-6-1991 reverting the petitioners as General Mazdoors. When the matter came up before my learned brother Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, J., on 25-6-91 he dismissed the Writ Petitions as infructuous, since orders impugned in those Writ Petitions were cancelled by the. respondents. It was however, observed that Petitioners would be free to challenge the validity of the said orders in appropriate proceedings. What is now challenged in these Writ Petitions are the orders reverting the petitioners from the posts of Clerks-Grade. II to the substantive category in which they were working prior to their appointment on 16-5-1988, 21-6-1988.
4. Petitioners submit that the Company had sent a letter to Maithili University on 30-5-88 to ascertain whether the degree certificates which the petitioners had produced were genuine and whether the University was recognised by the University Grants commission, and that the Registrar of Maithili University relied on 9-6-1988 affirming both the points. Reference was made to the communication of the Union Public service Commission dt. 11-4-1985 which replied to St. Philomena College, Puttur, South Kanara to the effect that Mythili University, Bihar is 'one of the recognised Universities, the degree awarded by that University are acceptable to the Commission for admission to various examinations conducted by them'. Reference was as made to the communication from the Lok Sabha Secretariat dt. 21-12-1989 to the general Secretary, Maithili Vishwavidyapith Students' Association to the effect that the question of recognition of Mythili University was pending with the Committee on Petitions (Eighth Lok Sabha). Reference was also made to the letter of State Bank of India, dt. 9-9-88 to the branch Manager, Bangalore, granting additional increments to persons who graduated from Maithili University, the communication from the Karnataka Bank Limited, dt. 11-4-1986, and the letter of the Syndicate Bank dt. 8-4-86 sanctioning additional increments to its staff, the letter of the Registrar of Kerala University, dt. July, J987 to the Public Relations Officer, Spices Board, Cochin, and letter from the Registrar, University of Calicut to the Registrar of Maithili University, dt. 10-10-1986 to the above effect On the basis of this material it is submitted that the assumption leading to the orders of reversion of the petitioners for misconduct under Clause 16 (2) of the Standing Orders is illegal and unsustainable. Yet another submission is that inasmuch as they have produced degree certificates genuinely issued by the recognised University, they could not have been reverted on the ground of misconduct
5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that graduation is an essential qualification for appointment as clerks-Grade II, in accordance with the Industrial Settlements applicable to the petitioners. A higher percentage of marks and successful completion of type writing examination are prescribed for outside candidates; for the internal candidates only graduation from a recognised university was prescribed. No person who do not have this basic qualification is entitled for appointment or continuance in a post of clerk. Respondent maintains that petitioners were appointed subject to verification as to whether Maithili University and graduation degree awarded by it were genuine. Even though the Registrar of Maithili University asserted that these were genuine, the company found on further verification that if was not a recognised University nor was it empowered to award its own degree in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the university Grants Commission Act, 1956. Company received a letter to this effect from the University Grants Commission on 12th September, 1988 that Maithili University is neither a University established by a Central or a State Act nor deemed to be University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, as such it is not empowered to award its own degrees in terms of the provisions of Section 221 of the said Act "and" information in this regard has already been given in the News Papers, Akashvani and Doordarshan on 21st November, 1986". Respondent invited my attention to the Publication in "The Hindu' dt. 22-7-1988 to the effect that the M.R.T.P. Commission restrained Maithili University from describing itself as university by issuing a notification through various publicity media. Another publication Hindu dt. 20-12-1988 was regarding fake institutions, one of which was Maithili University. It is submitted that the respondent decided to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of such information. Respondent also submits that the petitioners produced the fake graduation certificates, knowing that Maithili University was not recognised and could not have awarded graduate degrees. It was on this basis that the misconduct under Clause 16 (2) of the Standing Orders was alleged against the petitioners for suspending them and conducting an elaborate enquiry giving them ample opportunity to prove their defence, and they were later dismissed from service as a result of those proceedings. The fact that during the course of hearing of the two Writ Petitions viz., 6782/89 and 7752/89 the Company found that it would be expedient to reinstate the workmen in the posts which they were holding prior to their appointment as Clerks-Grade. II, is admitted. Respondent submits that petitioners not being qualified in terms of the Industrial Settlement to hold the posts of Clerks-Grade. I, they are not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition, even assuming that the entire disciplinary proceedings against them were vitiated. Reliance was placed on R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah, 1972 SLR 94, Eranalloor Service Co-operative bank v. Labour Court, 1986 (2) LLJ 492 and Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India, 1991 SC 1114. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this court inWrit Petition Nos. 10748 and 3160 of 1988 dt. 26.10.1988 wherein this court held that graduate degree of Maithili University was not a recognised degree as the University was not established by the Central Government or the State Government, nor was it recognised by the Universities Grants Commission. This court held that termination of service of a person who obtained appointment on production of degree certificate alleged to have been issued by the Maithili University was not illegal or improper.
6. There is no dispute before me that the qualification necessary for an internal candidate for appointment to the post of Clerk-Grade. II was graduation from a recognised University. This is clear from the circular dt. 23-2-1988. It is now clear that petitioners did not have this qualification at the time when they were appointed by orders 16-5-1988 and 21-6-88. The fact that they were appointed subject to verification as to whether the degrees which they produced were recognised is evident from the very fact that the respondent company wrote to the Registrar of the University on 30-5-88, to which the University replied on 9-6-1988. It is clear from the letter of the University Grants Commission which has got the power to recognise Universities, that Maithili University Grants Commission Act. If that be so, it could not have awarded any degree in terms of the provisions contained under Section 22 of that Act. The letter dt. 12-9-1988 from the University Grants Commission also clarifies that information in this regard had already been given to news papers, Akashavani, Doordarshan on 21st November, 1986. The letter of the Union Public Service Commission dt. 11-4-85 which the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8524/91 has produced, may not be very material in view of the letter of the University Grants Commission dt. 12-9-1988, to the effect that Maithili University was not a recognised University nor was it competent to issue degree certificates in November, 1986. The letter of the Registrar of the Osmania University dt. 2-5-86 being prior to November, 1986 when the University Grants commission issued the above information, cannot also be determinative, the communication dt 21-12-1989 of the Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing copy of the report of the Committee on Petitions cannot be of avail to the petitioners against the letter of the University Grants Commission referred to above. The fact that some of the Public Sector Banks have been accepting graduate certificates issued by the Maithili University for the fact that the University of Calicut in its letter dt. 10-10-1986 had informed the Maithili University of recognistion by the former of degrees of the latter, will not be for any assistance to the petitioner.because of the positive statement contained in the letter of the University Grants Commission to the contrary.
7. On a careful examination of the material produced by eitherside I am satisfied that the respondent was right in his submission that Maithili University was not, at the relevant time, recognised by the University Grants Commission nor was it established by the Central or State Government, to competently issue the Degree Certificates, under Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act.
8. The next question is whether the petitioners produced fake certificates fradulently and dishonstly? I do not think it is necessary to enter a finding in this regard, because petitioners were not graduates of a recognised university at that time and they were reverted to the posts of general Mazdoor which they were holding prior to their promotion as clerks-Grade.II and the same cannot be faulted. It is true that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitiones and they were dismissed from service and later reverted in substitution of dismissal on the basis of a charge of misconduct falling under Clause 16 (2) of the Standing Orders.
9. Need consider the question of legality or propriety of the order of reversion only if I hold that the petitioners were entitled to hold the post of Cerk-Grade.II.
10. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and perusing the materials which were produced before me, I am not persuaded to hold that their reversions were in any way vitiated.
11. I am of the opinion that the respondents are right in the submission that the only fact that petitioners were required occasionally to officiate as clerks during the period of five to ten years does not confer on them any right to continue in the posts of clerks. In Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar's case (3 supra) the Supreme Court held that officiation in a higher post in the exigencies of service do not confer any right to the post nor does it confer any right to seniority. It was further held:
"the person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement".
Naturally therefore, the stop-gap arrangement cannot confer any right on the petitioners.
12. It is however, clear that the respondents have abandoned the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners under Clause 16 (2) of the Standing Orders. The reversion of the petitioners cannot therefor be considered as punitive in character. They were reverted as General Mazdoors only because they were not qualified in terms of the Industrial Settlement because they were not graduates from a recognised university.
13. It is clear from the counter affidavit that the decision of the respondents was to put the petitioners back to their original position prior to their appointment as clerks-Grade. II. It is only appropriate that if the petitioners were being considered for officiation as clerks-Grade. II in the absence of qualified candidates, such officiation may continue whenever such exigencies arise.
14. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. There will be no order as to costs.