Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J.
XX - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & ORS. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9931 of 2025 & CM APPL. 41349-41351 of 2025 & CM APPL. 42157 of 2025 & CM APPL. 42663 of 2025 & CM APPL. 45892 of 2025
Decided On : 27-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.K. Mannan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rana S. Biswas, Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vidhi Gupta , Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Ms. Parthvi Ahuja, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Mr. Bhaskar Agarwal, Mr. Shrey Patnaik, Mr. Ritwik Batra and Ms. Mitali Karwa, Advocates
Termination of employment without clear justification constitutes stigma, violating principles of natural justice, particularly when linked to a prior complaint under the Sexual Harassment Act.
Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Termination of employment - Petitioner challenged her termination claiming it was without merit, attributing it to the filing of a POSH complaint. The court found no substantive evidence of misrepresentation by the petitioner regarding her qualifications. The role of the Executive Committee and the requirement of work experience were analyzed, leading to the conclusion that her termination was stigmatic, arbitrary, and without sufficient justification regarding her qualifications, resulting in the quashing of the termination order. (Paras 1-5, 21, 27, 99, 120)
(B) Employment Law - Probation - The termination of probationers can be interpreted as punitive if not justified by substantial allegations or misconduct, necessitating adherence to principles of natural justice when stigma attaches to such actions. (Paras 112-117)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was terminated from her position as Assistant Director (Legal) based on claims of not meeting eligibility criteria regarding work experience, despite being appointed after scrutiny. Her termination was challenged based on alleged malice for submitting a sexual harassment complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner did not misrepresent her qualifications and deemed her termination unjustified, with the termination order quashed.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner met the requisite experience for her role and if the termination order was retaliatory due to her filing a complaint under the POSH Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for clear justification for termination, acknowledging the adverse impact on a probationer's future prospects when unjustified.
Result: Writ petition allowed; termination quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to termination of employment (Para 1 , 2 , 12) |
| 2. factual background of employment (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. court's assessment of eligibility criteria (Para 27 , 56 , 70) |
| 5. examination of compliance with recruitment regulations (Para 75 , 78 , 107) |
| 6. principles of natural justice and authority of the court (Para 106 , 114 , 116) |
| 7. final decision quashing termination (Para 119 , 120 , 121) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ JAIN, J.
1. Petitioner challenges order dated 12.11.2024 whereby she has been terminated from service. She seeks issuance of appropriate writ directing her employer to reinstate her to the post of Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)-Legal, with all consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner has withheld her identity and has masked her name in the present writ petition. This seems to have been done for the reason that during the course of her employment in question, she had filed a complaint under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Though, the aforesaid complaint (being referred as POSH Complaint) has already been adjudicated, in the present matter, she would be referred to either as “petitioner” or as “XX”.
3. Let me narrate factual matrix, in brief.
4. Petitioner is admittedly a law graduate and got herself enrolled as advocate on 23.10.2011.
5. Bureau of Indian Standards (respondent no. 2 herein) is a statutory body, working under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. Needless to emphasize, Bureau of Indian Standards (in short 'BIS') is a National Standard Body of India established under BIS Act 2016 engaged in harmonious development of activities of standardization and system certification.
6. BIS came up with an advertisement on 05.09.2020 for various posts falling under Group-A, Group-B & Group-C.
7. One such position was Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)-Legal and the prescribed educational and other qualifications required for the aforesaid post were described as under in the advertisement: -
“For Assistant Director (Administration) for legal
i) Degree in law from a recognized university/Bachelor of law; and
ii) Three years’ experience in the relevant field in Central/ State/ Union Territory Government of Statutory/ Autonomous Body/ Public Sector undertaking/ reputed Government agency.
8. The applicant/petitioner applied for the aforesaid post and was, eventually, called for interview.
9. After rigorous selection process and subjecting her candidature to thorough verification with respect to her eligibility and experience credentials, BIS, after satisfying itself about the same, offered her appointment vide appointment letter dated 29.07.2021.
10. Such offer was accepted by her and she, eventually, joined BIS on 01.09.2021.
11. According to petitioner, her performance as per Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) was, always, ranked very highly and her integrity also remained beyond doubt. She even submitted her candidature for being considered as Director (Legal) within the same organization.
12. Fact remains, she was served with show cause notice on 13.04.2022 for concealment of facts and was asked to furnish details regarding her fulfilling the mandatory criteria of work-experience for Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)-Legal.
13. She submitted a comprehensive reply on 25.05.2022.
14. Her grievance is that despite the fact that BIS had, even, sought a specific clarification from Ministry of Consumer Affairs about her meeting the requisite criteria and that the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs had, in no uncertain terms, clarified that she met the requisite criteria as per the advertisement, BIS has terminated her services during her probation period holding that she was not meeting the requisite work-experience and that she had furnished false information for securing appointment.
15. Such order is under chal
