Karnataka High Court
Urukundi vs Senior Divisional Manager, Life ... on 20 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR2898, 2003(5)KARLJ205, 2003 LAB. I. C. 2660, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2202, (2003) 4 LAB LN 720, (2003) 7 SERVLR 485, (2003) 5 KANT LJ 205
Author: H.L. Dattu
Bench: H.L. Dattu
ORDER Dattu, J.
1. The respondent - Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('the Corporation' for short) had invited applications for appointment to the posts of Typists and Sub-staff for its Raichur divisional office. In this Writ Petition we are only concerned with the appointments made to the post of Sub-Staff in the Corporation. In the employment notice, the qualification that was prescribed for the post of Sub-staff is that, the applicant should have passed IX standard examination and the candidates who have passed SSLC examination with less than 55% of marks in the aggregate were also permitted to participate in the selection process.
2. Petitioner who is a graduate, had stalked his claim by filling up the prescribed proforma application and filing the same before the respondent - Corporation Copy of the application is produced by the respondent - Corporation along with their statement of objection. The application requires to be filled by the applicants in their own hand writing. In Column 8 of the application, the applicant is required to state his qualification as on the date of filing of the application and if he is still prosecuting his studies that also requires to be stated by him. The applicant in his own hand writing has filled all the columns in the application. In column 8(a), he has stated that he has passed S.S.L.C examination and in the next column, he has stated that he is not prosecuting his further studies. He has signed the application in his own hand writing after solemnly declaring that whatever he has stated is true to the best of his knowledge and belief. The last column of the application is relevant for the purpose of this case. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under:
"I solemnly declare and affirm that answers given in this form are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Further, I hereby declare that the replies given by me in respect of 8(a) and 8(b) are true I do not possess any qualification other than what is mentioned under 8(a) and am not prosecuting presently any studies other than what is mentioned by me under 8(b). I also undertake to promptly inform the Corporation. If I undertake any further studies after the submission of this application. I hereby agree that if any untrue answers be contained in this form or the above declaration is found to be untrue the Corporation shall disqualify me and, if appointed, dismiss me from the service of the Corporation"
3. Petitioner has also filed an affidavit before the respondent - Corporation. In that, he has categorically stated on oath, that he has only passed S.S.L.C. examination and he does not have any higher qualification and also has given them an undertaking that on verification, if the respondent - Corporation comes to know that he possess higher qualification than what is stated by him in the application, the Corporation may take any action as they deem it fit in the circumstances of the case. Taking into consideration, petitioner's application and the affidavit filed, the respondent - Corporation has appointed him as a Peon by their letter of appointment dated 31-07-1996 on probation.
4. On complaints received not only against the petitioner but also against several other appointees, the respondent Corporation has verified the educational qualification of the petitioner and others. On such verification, they have found that the petitioner had completed his B Com examination some time in the year 1994 itself. It is relevant here to state that the letter of appointment that was issued to the petitioner is only on 31-07-1996.
5. Having come to the know about the higher qualification that the petitioner possessed, than the qualification prescribed in the employment notice, the respondent Corporation had issued a show cause notice to him, inter alia directing him to show cause, why action should not be taken against him as provided in regulation 14(4) of the Regulations. Petitioner contends before this Court that he had filed his reply to the said show cause notice. But, that reply is not produced before this Court. It is the stand of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the said show cause notice. Be that as it may.
6. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has made a false statement in his application and also in the affidavit filed at the time of his appointment, the respondent - Corporation invoking the provisions of Regulation 14(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (the Regulations' for short), by their order dated 29-07-1997, have discharged the petitioner from service during the period of his probation aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court.
7. The respondent - Corporation with the previous approval of the Central Government has framed its Regulations in exercise of its powers under clauses (b) and (bb) of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956, defining the terms and conditions of service of the staff of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
8. Regulation 14 of the Regulations speaks of Probation Subregulation (2) of Regulation 14 of the Act envisages that a person appointed to posts belonging to Classes III and IV on the first appointment in the Corporation's service, be required to be on probation for six month. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 14 gives discretion to the employer to reduce or extend the probation period and such extension can be done for class III and IV employees only for a period of one year. Under sub-regulation (4), an employee on probation is liable to be discharged from service without notice. Subregulation( 4) of Regulation 14 is relevant for the purpose of this case. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under:
"During the period of probation an employee shall be liable to be discharged from service without any notice"
9. The validity or otherwise of the aforesaid sub-regulation is not questioned by the petitioner in these proceedings. Invoking the aforesaid sub-regulation, the respondent - Corporation has discharged the petitioner from service. The impugned order is mere discharge simpliciter. In justification of its order the respondents in their statement of objections filed before this Court have stated that the petitioner is discharged from service not merely on the ground that he possessed a higher qualification than the qualification prescribed under the employment notice, but also on the ground that he has made false declaration at the time of filing of his application and also has filed false affidavit at the time of his appointment in the services of the respondent - Corporation.
10. Petitioner in the Writ Petition does not dispute that at the time of filing of the application, he had completed his graduation nor does he offer any explanation for providing false information in the application and further making false statement on oath. In the application filed before the respondent - Corporation, he had stated that he had only passed S.S.L.C.examination and he does not have any higher qualification. In the affidavit also he had only stated that he possesses only SSLC qualification. By making false representation, or in the alternative by playing fraud and misrepresentation, the petitioner had secured an appointment in the respondent - Corporation. Noticing this aspect of the matter, the respondent - Corporation during the petitioner's probation period has discharged him from its service by invoking their powers under-subregulation (4) of the Regulation 14 of the Regulations.
11. Sri Narayana Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit, that possessing a higher qualification cannot disentitle the petitioner from making an application for appointment to the post of Peon. In support of that contention the learned Counsel has brought to my notice the observations made by Full Bench of the Court in the case of THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE AND OTHERS vs N.C. HUGAR, 1981(1) SLR 469 the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of GOPALAIAH vs THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER, , MRS. NEERA MATHUR vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, 1992 LAB I C 72, and the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. RIAZUL USMAN AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAGPUR AND OTHERS, . Further it is not the case of the petitioner's learned Counsel that the respondents before passing the impugned order should have held atleast a summary enquiry.
12. In the first case on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for petitioner, the Court has observed that if a candidate possesses the minimum qualification prescribed for the post and if he also possesses any further qualification, he will not be ineligible for the post. To the same effect is the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Riazul Usman's case, wherein the Court has observed the criteria laid shutting out candidates with higher education than standard VII is irrational and arbitrary.
In Mrs. Neera Mathur's case, the facts were totally different from the facts which we are dealing in the present case. Therefore, in my opinion, any observations made by the Apex Court in the said decision would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
In the case of Sri Gopalaiah, appellant was appointed as a Peon and at the time of his appointment he had stated that he has not passed SSLC examination, even though, he had passed the same long back. On coming to know that he had passed SSLC examination earlier to his appointment, the respondent - Bank had removed him from service. A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe that non-disclosure of the fact that he had passed SSLC examination at the time of his selection would not amount to a fraud. The Court was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the workman only on the ground that the Bank before terminating his services had not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Therefore, in my opinion, none of the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for petitioner would come to his aid.
13. In the instant case, as I have already noticed the application contained Clauses 8(a) and 8(b) and also a declaration to be made by the applicant. At Clauses 8(a) and 8(b), the candidate has to mention the qualification that he possessed on the date of filing of the application and Clause (b) suggests that if a person is still studying, he is expected to mention the class and the name of the school. In the application form fill in his own hand writing, petitioner categorically had stated that he had passed SSLC examination, though on the date of filing of the application he had already passed his graduation. At the end of the application form, the candidate has to make an appropriate declaration. If for any reason, a false assertion and declaration is made in so far as the educational qualification is concerned, the employer had reserved its liberty to terminate the services of the appointee. These columns do have some significance. The employer has good intention to provide employment only to those categories of persons who are less fortunate in obtaining higher qualification may be because of their poverty or because of their upbringing. The employer intends to encourage those people who could not prosecute their studies beyond a particular stage for the reasons mentioned by me earlier. The employer is fully aware of the socio-economic conditions of the downtrodens in this Country. Therefore, it is specific about the educational qualification of the candidate. It is not prepared to disqualify the applicant for any other reason, except the educational qualification. That only demonstrates that the employer has a good intention to extend its helping hand to those category of people who cannot achieve better educational qualification. This laudable object of the employer requires to be encouraged by this Court and need not be taken exception to its action on technical grounds.
14. Even in the affidavit that the petitioner had filed at the time of his appointment as a Peon in the services of the respondent - Corporation, he once again makes a false declaration.That declaration is made on oath by him. He has stated in the affidavit that he has completed only SSLC examination and he does not have any other qualification. This statement made on oath is false declaration made by the petitioner. A person who has secured a job by making false assertions and statements is not entitled to the discretionary relief of this Court. I am convinced that the petitioner by playing fraud and misrepresentation has secured the job in the services of the respondent - Corporation. In my view, the appointment secured by playing fraud and misrepresentation requires to be declared a nullity and such persons does not deserve any sympathy since he has deprived another candidate who is less qualified than him but would have fitted in to the organisation, since the respondents were asking only the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of sub-staff. A person who deprives another man's bread does not deserve any sympathy and compassion India's social system indeed, is based on principle of 'SWADHARMA' - righteousness of self Truth must prevail but that should not make us fatalist. Our paramount duty is to ensure that before the ultimate moment of truth arrives, the falsehood does not have too long an innings. At this stage it may be useful to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of KERALA SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LIMITED vs A. UNNIKRISHNAN.In the said decision, the Court was pleased to observe:
"7. We are inclined to agree with these submissions. In recent times, thee is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to generate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability."
15. In view of the above, in my opinion, the respondent - Corporation is wholly justified in passing the impugned order dated 29.7.1997. In that view of the matter, no interference with the said order is called for. Accordingly, petition is rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.