Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
G. Deivanai - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Dharmapuri & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 32858 of 2016 & W.M.P. No. 8403 of 2016 & W.M.P.No. 4338 of 2017
Decided On : 29-09-2022
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, V. Arun, Additional Advocate General Assisted by S. Anitha, Special Government Pleader, R2, S. Gunasekaran, R3, P. Manojkumar, Advocates.
Suppression of material facts and securing employment under false pretenses is not entitled to protection under the law.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Termination of Services - Widow Category - Widow certificate, Educational Certificates, FIR - [Article 226] - [Constitution of India] - [Article 226], [IPC Section 294(b), 354] - The court discussed the validity of the petitioner's appointment under the Widow category, the suppression of material facts, and the legality of the termination based on the findings of the enquiry and the evidence presented. The court found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of her remarriage and secured employment under the Widow category using a false certificate, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the termination of the petitioner's services as a Noon Meal Organizer, claiming eligibility under the Widow category. The petitioner's appointment was questioned due to a complaint alleging the use of a false Widow certificate, leading to an enquiry and subsequent termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of her remarriage and secured employment under the Widow category using a false certificate, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: Validity of appointment under the Widow category, suppression of material facts, legality of termination.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who suppresses vital material facts and secures employment under a specific category based on false documentation is not entitled to protection, and the termination based on such suppression is valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, and the termination of the petitioner's services is upheld.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.23005/2015 AKS, dated 11.08.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner as a “noon meal organizer” in the 2nd respondent school.)
1. The writ petition has been filed, challenging the order of termination dated 11.08.2016, terminating the services of the writ petitioner from the post of Noon Meal Organizer.
2. The petitioner states that she participated in the process of selection for the post of Noon Meal Organizer. The petitioner furnished all the particulars and documents at the time of attending interview and she is eligible for appointment under the “Widow category”. The petitioner produced the Widow certificate issued by the Thasildar. Accordingly, the petitioner was selected and appointed in proceedings dated 21.08.2012 to the post of Noon Meal Organizer.
3. The third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja filed a complaint against the writ petitioner, stating that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made illegally and she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31967 of 2015 and this Court passed an order on 08.10.2015, directing the District Collector, Dharmapuri, to consider the representation and dispose of the same after putting notice to the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions, the first respondent called upon the writ petitioner on 08.12.2015, to submit her explanations regarding the allegations made by the third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the first respondent on 15.12.2015 in person and sent the same through Registered post. Shockingly, the first respondent dismissed the services of the writ petitioner on the ground that she got remarried. Thus, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that Widow remarrying a person, would not disentitle the appointed candidate to hold the posts of Noon Meal Organizer. At the time of selection, the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by the Tahsildar that she is a Widow. However, subsequently, she got remarried after appointment and therefore, the order of dismissal from service is untenable. There are many vacancies of Noon Meal Organizer posts is available in the District and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been disturbed unnecessarily.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner falls under the Widow category for selection and appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organizer and she was appointed under the priority category of Widow, after verification of the certificate issued by the Thasildar and thus, there is no infirmity and consequently, the order of dismissal is to be set aside.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent objected the said contentions by stating that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.31967 of 2015, the first respondent conducted an enquiry, based on the complaint given by the third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja. Accordingly, after issuance of notice to the parties, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, submitted his enquiry report to the District Collector through his proceedings No.16/2016/A2 dated 08.08.2016. Accordingly, final order was passed in proceedings dated 11.08.2016, dismissing the services of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is now continuing in the post pursuant to the interim order granted in the present writ petition and therefore, she cannot claim any advantage merely on the ground that she is allowed to continue in service.
7. The learned Additional Advocate
