Telangana High Court
The Governemnt Of India, Ministry Of ... vs Shri G. Gnana Prakash S/O G. Narasing Rao on 6 July, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
AKS,J & NVSK,J
W.P.No.23695 of 2004
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P.No.23695 OF 2004
ORDER:-(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari' calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.1404 of 2001, dated 08.11.2004, on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri B.Jithender, learned counsel representing Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Sri K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the notification published in Employment News dated 20-26th May, 2000, the respondent herein had applied for the post of Technical Assistant "A" in Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent possessed M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry and the requisite qualification for the post of Technical Assistant "A" is Three years Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering/Three years Diploma in Metallurgical Engineering/Three years Diploma in Mechanical 2 AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 Engineering/Bachelor's Degree in Science (MPC). The respondent had suppressed his higher qualification in the application form and appeared for the post of Technical Assistant "A" and was selected for the post of Technical Assistant "A" and was given appointment orders vide Lr.No.DMRL/E/8/107, dated 11.05.2001. While the petitioner verifying the records of the respondent, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that the respondent had suppressed about his higher qualification of possessing M.Sc in Chemistry and accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 06.07.2001 as to why his services should not be removed for wilful and deliberate suppression of the facts to the employer. The respondent has given his explanation on 16.07.2001 stating that he has not suppressed about his higher qualification. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, had removed the respondent from his service vide orders dated 27.09.2001.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that challenging the orders of removal, the respondent had filed O.A.No.1404 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide orders dated 08.11.2004, was pleased to allow the O.A. and was pleased to set-aside the orders of removal 3 AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 dated 27.09.2001 and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with back wages without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the qualification required for the post of Technical Assistant "A" is only B.Sc with MPC qualification. But the respondent has suppressed his higher qualification of possessing M.Sc. in Chemistry and deceitfully got selected as Technical Assistant "A" and the other candidates who were having requisite qualification as set out in the notification were denied an opportunity to get selected and therefore, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to law and the same are liable to be set-aside.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that in the notification which was issued for the post of Technical Assistant "A", there was no bar that higher qualified candidates should not apply for the post of Technical Assistant "A". The qualification which was prescribed for the post of Technical Assistant "A" is, three years Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering/Three years Diploma in Metallurgical Engineering/Three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering/Bachelor's Degree in Science (MPC). Admittedly, 4 AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 the respondent possesses Bachelor's Degree in M.P.C. and incidentally, the respondent is also having higher qualification of M.Sc. in Chemistry. The higher qualification of the respondent should not be put against him as the respondent possessed the requisite qualification as set out in the notification.
8. The counsel for the respondent further contended that no where in the notification dated 20-26/05/2000 it was set out that persons with higher qualification would not be considered for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant. The respondent had participated in the selection process and after being qualified in the selection process only, was given appointment orders. The question of respondent suppressing about his higher qualification did not arise and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. preferred by him. Therefore, there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of both the parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. preferred by the respondent and the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. with the following observations:-
5
AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 "8. The applicant joined duty on 01.06.2001. It is not disputed that the applicant was possessing M.Sc.Degree, Chemistry, when he applied for the post of Technical Assistant "A" pursuant to the notification published in Employment News dated 20-26 May, 2000. But he had not mentioned the qualification of M.Sc. for the post of Technical Assistant "A" and also in the bio-data submitted by him at the time of interview on 09.02.2001. It is seen from the counter reply filed by the respondents that applicant did not indicate on the bio-data form, that he had appeared for an interview in DRDO earlier, an item of information which was explicitely sought in item 9 of the bio-data form, through he attended the interview for the post of Junior Research Fellow in DMRL itself on 27.12.1999. When it was brought to the notice of the respondents that the applicant is possessing M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry and he did not mention the same in his application mentioned above, the respondents have issued the show cause notice dated 06.07.2001 and after considering the explanation came to the conclusion that the applicant has wilfully suppressed the relevant information in the application form and bio-data and therefore removed him from service vide order dated 27.09.2001. However, it is not explained by the respondents as to what could be the reason behind the suppression of the information that he was possessing M.Sc. in Chemistry at the time of making application for the post of Technical Assistant "A".
It is not the case of the respondents that those who possess M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry cannot apply for the post of Technical Assistant "A". Nowhere in the notification it was mentioned that if the candidate possessed higher degree, he would not be considered for the post. In this context, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to a notification dated 22-28 September, 2001 issued for the post of Junior Research Fellowship and the educational qualification required for the post was First Class M.Sc. Degree with maximum of 28 years age. In the said notification, it was clearly mentioned that candidates with higher qualifications will not be considered. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that no such condition was stipulated in the notification dated 20-26 May, 2000. Therefore, there could not be any reason to say that the applicant has suppressed his higher educational qualification with the motive to get any benefit. As mentioned above, since no such condition was stipulated 6 AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 in the notification for the post of Technical Assistant "A" that candidates with higher qualifications will not be considered, suppression of the higher qualification, in our opinion, cannot be said to be suppression of material information. Therefore, in our view, the respondents were not justified in drawing the inference that by suppressing the higher qualification, the applicant had suppressed the material information and therefore, he is liable to be removed from service in terms of Para 7 of the offer of appointment dated 11.05.2001 enclosed as Annexure V at page 11 of the OA. It is true that in terms of item 8 of bio- data mentioned above, the applicant was supposed to mention his educational qualification and therefore, the applicant was not correct in not mentioning M.Sc. Degree. But, in our view, he was otherwise found best suitable candidate and has fulfilled all the other conditions stipulated in the notice and possessed the required qualification. Therefore, he could not be removed from service in terms of Para 7 of the appointment letter because of suppression of material information.
9. We have also taken note of the fact that the applicant while giving his explanation to the show cause notice, has categorically stated that he mentioned only the required qualification which he thought enough and mentioned the same but not with any ill intentions to suppress the facts. He has not mentioned about higher education due to his misunderstanding that only required qualification is to be mentioned and he regretted for the said act. Since possession of higher qualification was not bar for consideration of the candidature of the applicant, we do not find any reason to believe that applicant had any ill motive to suppress the fact to get any benefit. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents are not justified in drawing their conclusion that applicant had suppressed the fact intentionally and deliberately and such omission on the part of the applicant is sufficient to remove the applicant in terms of para 7 of the offer of appointment letter.
10. That being the position, in our view, by not mentioning higher qualification the applicant had not suppressed any material information. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in removing the applicant through the impugned letter in terms of para 7 of the appointment letter dated 11.05.2001. Therefore, the 7 AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 impugned order dated 27.09.2001 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to take back the applicant in service with back wages. Respondents shall pay the backwages within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order."
10. A perusal of the record also discloses that admittedly, the respondent is having the requisite qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Science (MPC) and incidentally, the respondent is also having M.Sc in Chemistry. The higher qualification of the respondent should not be put against the respondent and nowhere in the notification it has been stated that persons with higher qualification will not be considered for selection to the post of Technical Assistant "A". Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.
11. Hence, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Dt.06.07.2022 ysk 8 AKS,J & NVSK,J W.P.No.23695 of 2004 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P.No.23695 OF 2004 Dt.06.07.2022 ysk