IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
NISHITA MHATRE & ASHA ARORA, JJ.
State of West Bengal and others – Appellants
Versus
Chaitali Das - Respondent
F.M.A No. 1464 of 2015
Decided On : 07-08-2015
ANGANDI WORKER - APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION - SUPPRESSION OF QUALIFICATION - ADVERTISEMENT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING GRADUATES FROM APPLYING FOR THE POST - CANDIDATE GIVING FALSE DECLARATION REGARDING EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION - TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT JUSTIFIED - RINA DUTTA'S CASE DISTINGUISHED.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker after she was duly selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 5th July, 2006. However, her appointment was terminated on the ground that she had completed her graduation before applying for the post and had given a false declaration regarding her educational qualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of termination was justified as the writ petitioner/respondent had applied for the post by suppressing her graduation degree and had given a false declaration in this regard in her joining letter. The court distinguished the case of Rina Dutta's case, relied upon by the writ petitioner/respondent, on the ground that in that case the advertisement did not specifically debar or disqualify graduate women from applying for the post of Anganwadi Workers.
Issues: Whether the termination of the writ petitioner/respondent's appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of the writ petitioner/respondent's appointment was justified as she had suppressed her graduation degree and given a false declaration regarding her educational qualification. The court relied on the judgment in Monoj Kumar versus Government of NCT of Delhi and others, wherein the Apex Court observed that if any candidate furnishes false or incomplete information or withholds or conceals any material information in his application, he will be debarred from securing employment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 12/9/2012 passed in W.P No. 19895 (W) of 2012.
Asha Arora, J.
1. The writ petitioner/respondent had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to an advertisement dated 5th July, 2006 which was published as per Memorandum dated 25th January, 2006. The aforesaid advertisement stipulated as follows:
“The candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker should have a Madhyamik or equivalent pass certificate. SC, ST candidate can apply only if they have passed class VIII. Graduate and above cannot apply for the post. If the results of the graduation examination are not declared on the date of the publication of the notice, then the applicant can apply.” The writ petitioner was duly selected and appointed as an Anganwadi Worker whereafter it was detected that she had completed her graduation before applying for the post and in suppression of the said fact, she had given a false declaration regarding her educational qualification. Her appointment was accordingly terminated by a letter dated 2/12/2009 the relevant portion of which reads thus:
“As reported by the concerned authority, she completed graduation before applying for the post of Anganwadi Worker and so, as per terms and conditions of the appointment, her service is hereby terminated from the post of Anganwadi Worker.”
2. The aforesaid order of termination was challenged by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 19895 (W) of 2012.
3. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties the learned Single Judge of this Court observed as follows:
“I find that the issue of suppression of over qualification for consideration of candidature for engagement to the post of Anganwadi Worker has already been decided by a Special Bench of this Court in the case of Rina Dutta and others versus Anjali Mahato and others reported in 2010 (2) CLJ (CAL) 321 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:
“21. When a particular qualification is laid down in an advertisement relating to a distinct class of candidates, the candidates possessing a qualification higher than that advertised can ordinarily not be debarred or disqualified, but it is open to the employer to make a rule providing for disqualification of candidates possessing qualification higher than the prescribed qualification, but the burden would be on the employer to justify such a rule.”
4. By the order dated 12/9/2012 the learned Single Judge held that “in view of the above settled principles of law the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set aside.”
5. Aggrieved, the appellants assailed the said order in the present appeal.
6. Mr. Majumder, the learned Counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the Memorandum dated 25th January, 2006 for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers which clearly provides that “Candidates who are graduates will not be eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker. If a graduate candidate suppresses her academic qualification and if selected to a post of Anganwadi Worker her service will be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason.” Mr. Majumder further pointed out that the advertisement dated 5th July, 2006 in response to which the writ petitioner Chaitali Das had applied also categorically mentioned that “graduates and above cannot apply for the post. If the results of the graduation examination are not declared on the date of the publication of the notice then the applicant can apply.” Our attention has been drawn to the declaration dated 8/8/2007 of Chaitali Das the relevant portion of which reads thus:
“I, Chaitali Das hereby declare that I have not obtained any graduation degree from any recognised university and I am a permanent resident of Pandua Gram Panchayat under the Pandua Block area. If any of the above facts turn out to be false I shall be bound to consider my appointment to be immediately cancelled. I am joining as temporary Anganwadi Worker today 8/8/2007 accepting all above conditions.”
7. It has been ar
Monoj Kumar versus Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2010) 11 SCC 702
Commissioner of Police and others versus Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.