Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uma Saha (Banik) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 March, 2021
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
09.03.2021.
Item no. 122.
Court No.13
ap
W.P.A. No. 24902 of 2015
(Through Video Conference)
Uma Saha (Banik)
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee,
Mr. Barnamoy Basak.
...For the petitioner.
Mr. Susanta Pal,
Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar.
...For the State.
Mr. Susanta Pal, learned Advocate has been
requested by this Court to represent on behalf of the
State in the matter since he has represented the State
in the past.
His appointment may be regularized by the
Office of the Legal Remembrancer.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order
dated 4th February, 2008 passed by the Child
Development Project Officer, Tufanganj-I, ICDS, Cooch
Behar being the respondent no.4 herein terminating
her service from the post of Anganwari Worker.
The principal ground for termination is that the petitioner has suppressed her higher educational qualifications before the Authority at the time of recruitment. The recruitment notice clearly states that all the candidates will have to give a declaration regarding their maximum academic qualification. 2 Counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyamali Bankura (Makar) - Vs. - The State of West Bengal & Ors. dated 6th August, 2015 passed in F.M.A. No. 3462 of 2013 contending that since the suppression did not benefit the petitioner in any way, the petitioner's service could not have been terminated.
Counsel for the State, however, relies upon a Division Bench judgment rendered on 7th August, 2015 in the case of State of West Bengal - Vs. - Chaitali Das reported in 2015(5) CHN (CAL) 138. In the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court has held that suppression of educational qualifications or any fact relating to the candidature of an applicant, should ordinarily lead to termination of service.
Reference was made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rina Dutta - Vs. - Anjali Mahato reported in 2010(2) CLJ (CAL) 321 in this regard by the said Division Bench in Chaitali Das case (supra).
Having considered the argument of the parties, this Court sees that indeed Graduate qualifications are not a bar to the post of Anganwari Workers as evident from the advertisement itself. However, the bona fides of candidature and conduct of a candidate is determined while requiring such person to make an honest disclosure and/or declaration in that regard. 3
Admittedly, the petitioner made a dishonest declaration by suppression of her Graduate qualification.
This Court is of the view that such suppression of educational qualification is indeed fatal to engagement in any post including that of Anganwari Workers and the petitioner cannot rely upon the clause in the advertisement, permitting Graduates to apply, in defence of such illegal and improper suppression.
For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)