IMPORTANT POINT
Similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated.

JUDGMENT

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 542 of 2004 whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. It is further directed by the High Court that the appellant may consider to impose the penalty against the present respondent as was awarded in the case of Daluram Patidar, another employee of the appellant-Corporation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Senior Divisional Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, at Shahdol in order to recruit peons (sub-staff) invited applications from the qualified candidates through Employment Exchange. Pursuant to that, respondent -Triveni Sharan Mishra submitted his application. As per the qualification prescribed by the appellant, a candidate was required to have passed Standard IX, but the candidates who have passed Standard XII and have secured 50% or more marks, Graduates or Post-graduates were not to be considered for the post. The respondent (writ petitioner) in his application (Annexure P-3) for the above post mentioned his qualification “Higher Secondary (XIth old)”. At the end of the application dated 20th January, 1996, a declaration was made by the candidate (writ petitioner) that he did not possess any other qualification except the one mentioned in the application. The respondent – writ petitioner appears to have got selected for the post of Peon. However, after couple of years of his service, it was found that he possessed Bachelor’s Degree and he was pursuing M.A.(previous) in Economics at the time he applied for the post as above. On this, the respondent was served with the charge-sheet by the appellant and departmental enquiry was initiated. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the respondent (writ petitioner) was found guilty of misconduct. Consequently, he was served with the show-cause notice as to why he be not removed from the service. On consideration of the reply submitted by the respondent, the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Shahdol vide his order dated 30th October, 2000 (Annexure P-11), removed the respondent -writ petitioner from the service. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Departmental Appellate Authority i.e. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Delhi. Upon consideration of the appeal submitted by the respondent against imposition of penalty of removal in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Regulations’) passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Shahdol, the Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the said Authority, and dismissed the appeal on th February, 2003.

3. Aggrieved by said order, the respondent filed writ petition No. 542 of 2004(s) before the High Court. The High Court after taking action and hearing the parties found that the qualification fixed by the present appellant that the candidate should not possess the higher qualification than the IXth Standard, is violative of Article14 of the Constitution of India. It further found that similarly situated another employee with the department was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect, as such the punishment awarded to the writ petitioner was discriminatory. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, this appeal was preferred by the employer – Life Insurance Corporation of India.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

5. The qualification prescribed by the appellant for the post of peon, as mentioned in Annexure P-1 reads as under:

“ b) Qualifications A pass in ST.IX. However Candidates who passed XII Std. and have secured 50% or more marks, graduates or post graduates will not be considered.

Xx