Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
Minati Das - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. 21778(W) of 2015
Decided On : 29-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rudranil Dey
For the State-Respondents: Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, Mr. Pinaki Dhole
A candidate who suppresses their qualification to obtain employment to which they are not entitled to can be terminated from their service.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - SUPPRESSION OF QUALIFICATIONS - CANDIDATE WITH HIGHER QUALIFICATION INELIGIBLE FOR POST - ADVERTISED ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - JUSTIFICATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - APPOINTMENT OF ANGANDWADI WORKERS - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - SUPPRESSION OF HIGHER QUALIFICATION - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a graduate, was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker despite a specific advertisement stating that graduates were ineligible for the post. She was later terminated from her job on the ground of suppression of her qualification. The petitioner challenged the termination order, relying on judgments that held that higher qualification cannot operate as a bar to employment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's suppression of her qualification amounted to making a false declaration and playing fraud upon the employer. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from those in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, noting that in those cases, the advertisements did not specifically debar or disqualify graduate women from applying to the post of Anganwadi worker. In the present case, however, the advertisement specifically stated that candidates possessing graduate qualification would be ineligible.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's suppression of her qualification amounted to making a false declaration and playing fraud upon the employer? 2. Whether the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable from the present case? 3. Whether the State was justified in terminating the petitioner's service?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's suppression of her qualification amounted to making a false declaration and playing fraud upon the employer because the advertisement specifically stated that candidates possessing graduate qualification would be ineligible. 2. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from those in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, noting that in those cases, the advertisements did not specifically debar or disqualify graduate women from applying to the post of Anganwadi worker. 3. The Court held that the State was justified in terminating the petitioner's service because she had violated the terms and conditions of her employment by suppressing her qualification.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner.
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order of termination of the job of the petitioner who was once appointed as an Anganwadi Worker.
2. The Integrated Child Development Project Officer, Ratua-I, Malda, issued a notification dated February 17, 2006 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Workers. The qualification for the post was Madhyamik or its equivalent examination. It was specifically laid down therein that a graduate or persons holding higher qualifications would not be eligible for the said post. The eligibility condition contained a further rider, i.e. if a candidate suppressed her qualification and was selected, her candidature/appointment would be cancelled forthwith the moment proof with regard to the same would be obtained without assigning any reason.
3. The petitioner is a graduate but she was eventually selected for the said post in the year 2007.
4. On December 19, 2007, the respondent No. 5 herein issued a notice by which the petitioner was intimated that she had completed her graduation in the year 2004 and she was directed to show cause why legal action would not be taken against her as she had violated the stipulations contained in the advertisement. It was also mentioned that by suppressing her qualification, she had misled and played fraud upon the Selection Committee. The petitioner gave a reply which not having been found satisfactory, the respondent No. 5 by a letter dated January 4, 2008 had cancelled her appointment in terms of the relevant Government Order governing the field.
5. As mentioned before, the said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. The writ petition is plainly not maintainable primarily for two reasons. First, the petitioner has approached the Court more than 7½ years after her service was terminated. Even if, there is no fixed time limit for filing a writ petition, the Court expects a litigant to be diligent in approaching the Court. There is no explanation for this unusual delay in filing the writ petition, except that she came across a news item in a newspaper. That can hardly by any explanation for the huge delay in approaching the Court. The worth of an explanation cannot be judged on the passing of an order in an uncertain future and its reporting by press. Even if the maximum permissible limit provided in the schedule to the Limitation Act for obtaining a relief in a civil Court is taken to be a guidance for determining the delay in filing the writ petition, the petitioner had approached this Court after a long expiry of the said period also. Thus, on the ground of delay alone the writ petition is not entertainable.
7. I could have set the matter at rest on the ground of delay only. But since the petitioner and Anganwadi workers whose services have been similarly terminated for identical reasons want to make out a case based on law, it is necessary to address the issue on the merit as well.
8. I have heard Mr. Dey, the learned advocate for the petitioner and did find nothing to justify the sustenance of the writ petition except some judgments of this Court which are easily distinguishable on facts. The petitioner very heavily relies on the Special Bench Judgment in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. Vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors., reported in 2010 (2) CLJ (Cal.) 321 for a proposition that the higher qualification cannot operate as a bar to employment to a certain post and, therefore, the State action was bad in law.
9. Based on the Special Bench Judgment, a Division Bench of this Court delivered a judgment in the case of Madhuri Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Others., reported in 2013 (3) WBLR (Cal) 560. There also the same question cropped up for consideration and the Division Bench held that in view of the Special Bench Judgment and specifically in view of the subsequent modification of the guidelines whereby the restriction on employment of a candidate possessing a graduation degree had been lifted, n
