Qualifications acquired during leave, under disciplinary scrutiny but not disqualified, cannot be deemed 'tainted'.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner herein was placed second in a rank list prepared by the Lakshadweep Administration, consequent to a notification issued by them dated 05.08.2017, to the post of Revenue Inspector. The 3^rd respondent in these matters was placed rank No.1, but the petitioner asserts that she ought not to be granted appointment because, her qualification is “tainted”.

2. Sri.K.P.S Suresh - appearing for the petitioner, explained that the qualification required, to be considered to the post of Revenue Inspector, is a Degree and pass in Chain Survey (Lower) Examination; and admitted that both the candidates, namely the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, have the afore qualifications. His contention, however, was that the passing of the Chain Survey (Lower) Examination by the 3^rd respondent was at the time when she was on Child Care Leave (CCL); and hence that she was proceeded against disciplinarily by the Administration, to be found guilty and imposed with a punishment. He argued that, in such perspective, the qualification acquired by the 3^rd respondent can only be seen to be “tainted”; and hence that she ought not to be even considered for the post of Revenue Inspector.

3. Sri.R.V Sreejith – learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration, however, submitted that, though the afore facts stated against the 3^rd respondent are true, there is one relevant factor in her favour, namely, that the disciplinary action finally led only to a warning, which, as per the extant Rules and Regulations, – do not constitute a bar for consideration of a candidate for promotion or appointment. He then added that, on the rank list being published, the applicant had, in fact, challenged it before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) by filing O.A No.180/00129/2020, on the same allegation as afore, namely that her qualification is “tainted”; but that the learned Tribunal delivered order dated 01.04.2022 directing the Competent Authority to finalise the disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent within a period of six months. He pointed out that, in the said order, the competent authority of the Lakshadweep Administration was given liberty to take steps for appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector, depending up on the outcome of the inquiry; and that, since the said respondent was only granted a punishment of warning, she was found eligible to be appointed. He prayed that, therefore, these Original Petitions be dismissed.

4. Before we move forward, we must record why there are two original petitions and why we are hearing them together.

5. The appellant filed O.A No.443 of 2023 before the learned Tribunal, with a prayer that the Lakshadweep Administration be directed not to issue any order of appointment to the 3^rd respondent; and further that, if it has already been done, she be reverted to her original post of ‘Gumastha’ and he be appointed in her place.

6. While so, the 3^rd respondent filed O.A No.412 of 2023, requesting that the Lakshadweep Administration be directed to appoint her to the post of Revenue Inspector, based on the Rank list.

7. Both these Original Petitions were heard by the learned Tribunal together and the impugned judgment was passed.

8. The learned Tribunal has dismissed O.A No.443 of 2023 of the petitioner; while, O.A No. 412 of 2023 filed by the 3^rd respondent has been allowed; thus directing that she be appointed.

9. The appellant has filed O.P(CAT) No.145 of 2025 against the order in O.A No.443 of 2023; and O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2026, impugning the final order in O.A No.412 of 2023, after having obtained leave of this Court to do so, since he was not a responden