Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is further contended that the applicant in his application form has mentioned that result is awaited and the respondents were fully aware of his mentioning of the said phrase and selected him knowing very well that the applicant has appeared in the examination and his result was awaited. When he joined the service he had already passed the examination and supplied the original documents even at the time of interview.

6. In support of the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, he placed his reliance on judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Arunaben T. Bhojak versus Secy., Ahmedabad Education Society, Lal Bhawan, Badra, Ahmedabad and Others [(1995) 3 SCC 120] and Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another versus Chander Shekher and Another with State of Jammu & Kashmir versus Chander Shekher and Others [1993 Supp (2) SCC 611]. In these circumstances Sh. Chaudhary would urge that the OA should be allowed by quashing the termination order dated 10.04.2012 and directing the respondents to declare that the applicant had completed his probation after completion of two years of service.

7. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and have filed their reply affidavit on 18.05.2012 through Sh. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Anand submitted that the applicant did not possess the essential qualification even on the last date of submission of application form. He drew our attention to the footnote of Sl. No.12 of the application form to submit that candidates should mention their educational qualification i.e. exam passed, code, faculty/discipline code and specialization/subject code. The applicant in his application form dated 30.04.2007 for the post of Linguist (French) in NTRO [against Code 12(a)] had stated result awaited which implied that he did not possess bachelor degree with diploma at the time of submission of his application. He would draw our attention to the copy of applicants application form to highlight that he misled the respondents showing at Annexure CA-2 that the year of passing was 2007. He passed his examination of BA (Hons.) Part-III on 26.06.2007 much after the last date of submission of application form. Further, he submitted that the applicant passed his DELF B-2 course which was for Independence User on 05.11.2007. At the time he submitted his application form, the applicant was in possession of French in DELF A-2 course which was for Basic User and was not meeting the requirement of the post in the light of essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. It is stated that DELF A2 is equal to a certificate course but not equivalent to diploma, whereas DELF B2 is equivalent to diploma.

Essential qualifications: Post Graduate degree in the concerned language from a recognized University or Institution or Bachelors degree with diploma in the concerned language from a recognized University or Institution. Oral communication skills in the foreign language. As per the above stipulation the candidates who possessed the above essential qualification were alone eligible to apply. The applicant admittedly applied for the post when he did not possess the qualification i.e. on the date of advertisement or on the date of application or even the last date for submission of application form he was not fulfilling the essential qualification but by the time interview took place he was possessing essential qualification. The respondents held the view that the applicant is not eligible to apply as on the crucial date he has not possessed the essential qualification. It is seen from the applicants application form that at (a) of Column 12 under heading Educational Qualification he has mentioned 01 in the point examination passed which means he has passed Degree/Grad. Further at (b) of Column 12 he has mentioned DELF-A2 below the entry of 03. Respondents seem to have been misguided such entries though the applicant has kept marks column blank after (a) and mentioned Result Awaited. Though he was appointed after selection and interview, the main fact remains that he was not eligible to apply. Hence, the findings of audit and the enquiry noticed that illegality has been committed in allowing the selection process and appointment for the applicant.