Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 479
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debi Prosad Dey, J.
Shweta Dey & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors - Respondents
W.P. No.9351(W) of 2011
Decided on : 05-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Monojit Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Ms.Shabana Hasin
The imposition of a condition regarding the suppression of higher qualifications for employment is contrary to the rules of reasonableness and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT LAW - QUALIFICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT - ART. 14, 21 - SUPPRESSION OF HIGHER QUALIFICATIONS - RE-ENGAGEMENT OF ANGWANDI WORKERS - Petitioners, who were appointed as Anganwadi workers despite suppressing their higher qualifications, were terminated from service. The court held that the termination was contrary to the Constitution and directed their re-engagement.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who were graduates, applied for the post of Anganwadi workers under the Child Development Project. The advertisement stated that graduates or post-graduates would not be considered. Petitioners were appointed but later terminated for suppressing their qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the termination of the petitioners' services was contrary to the Constitution of India and the subsequent notification issued by the State Government permitting re-engagement of terminated Anganwadi workers.
Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioners' services was contrary to the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in FMA no. 3462 of 2013 (Smt. Shyamali Bankura Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) and FMA no. 288 of 2015 (State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Bharati Ghorai & Ors.) and held that the imposition of a condition regarding the suppression of higher qualifications was contrary to the rules of reasonableness.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of termination and directed the re-engagement of the petitioners as Anganwadi workers.
1. In terms of the advertisement dated 20th October, 2009 for the recruitment of Anganwadi workers under the Child Development Project, Mathabhanga-II ICDS Project, the petitioners applied for the said post and the petitioners were accordingly recruited for the post of Anganwadi workers. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that the graduates or post-graduates will not be considered for the post of Anganwadi workers for the project under reference and in case of suppression of educational qualification by the applicant, their appointment would be cancelled immediately. Admittedly, the petitioners possess higher qualification but being unemployed graduates in a desperate need for employment they had applied to such post suppressing their actual qualification. The authorities admittedly enquired into the matter and being aware of such qualification of the present petitioners terminated the services of the petitioners by memo no. 25/ICDS/MTB-2 dated 24th January, 2010 following the circular no. 8050(17) dated 4th April, 1985 and 288(SW) dated 25th October, 2006. The petitioners have filed this writ petition stating interalia that the project of ICDS is a Central Government Scheme in which the minimum prescribed educational qualification is Madhyamik or equivalent and the State Government is not competent to question the candidature of any candidate with higher qualification from being considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi workers. The circular to that effect issued by the state of West Bengal as well as the order of termination issued by state respondents are all contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India and infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners by Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Despite giving specific opportunity the state respondents did not file any affidavit in opposition and in absence of any affidavit in opposition it may safely be stated that the contention of the petitioners has been virtually admitted by the state respondents. Admittedly, petitioner no. 1 to 8 applied for the post of Anganwadi worker and after going through the process of recruitment, they were appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker by respondent no. 4.
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the state of West Bengal has subsequently issued notification being no. 2791-SW/3S- 267/2012 and whereby the Anganwadi workers who were terminated from service on 5th August, 2012 for suppressing higher qualification at the time of their appointment were permitted to rejoin their respective post on the strength of the departments G.O. no. 72-SW dated 4th January, 2013 vide annexure R-1. It is therefore crystal clear from such notification of the Government of West Bengal department of woman and Child Development and Social Welfare that the Government has realised the defect in the notification and thereafter permitted for reengagement of all those Angarwadi workers who were terminated from service on 5th August, 2012.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has also referred a unreported decision being FMA no. 3462 of 2013 (Smt. Shyamali Bankura Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) wherein the Division Bench of this Court set aside the notification containing the stipulation that suppression of higher qualification will render the service of the petitioner for termination. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Rina Dutta and ors. Vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors. reported in 2010(3) Calcutta Law Times 232 wherein the Special bench specifically held as follows:-
“When a particular qualification is laid down in an advertisement relating to a distinct class of candidate, the candidate, the candidate possessing a qualification higher than that advertised can ordinarily not be dis-qualified but it is open to the employer to make a rule providing for disqualification of candidates possessing qualification higher than the prescribed qualific
