SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2032

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Shiv Sagar Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
District Basic Education Officer Kaushambi and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1156 of 2009
Decided On : 05-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Prakash Padia, Dr. R.G. Padia, Kshitij Shailendra and Yash Padia.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Hari Shankar Mishra, R.K.Jain, R.N. Singh, Rahul Jain, Raju Shanker, Ravi Shanker, Ravishanker Prasad and S.K. Gupta.

IMPORTANT POINT
Long-term satisfactory service can outweigh initial technical disqualifications, especially when the employee is not at fault for the oversight.

Headnote:

Employment - Termination - Act Section List - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding eligibility for appointment, emphasizing that long-term service and lack of fault on the employee's part should mitigate the consequences of initial ineligibility.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the termination of his services as a Chowkidar based on his age at the time of appointment, which was below the minimum requirement. The termination was based on a complaint that revealed this fact in 2008, despite the petitioner having served satisfactorily since 1976.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had been a satisfactory employee and that the disciplinary proceedings regarding his age had not been finalized even after his retirement. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be penalized for a technicality that was not his fault.

Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was justified given the age discrepancy at the time of appointment and the long duration of satisfactory service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having served for many years without any disciplinary issues, could not be penalized for a minor age discrepancy at the time of appointment, especially since the authorities had failed to finalize the disciplinary proceedings.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the termination order is quashed.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

Heard Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

    ''(a) issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.12.2008 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the respondent No. 1. The District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the letter dated 11.12.2008 referred by respondent No. 1 addressed to the Manager of the institution in question;

(c) issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as Clerk;

(d) issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner month-by-month as and when it fails due;''

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his services has been terminated vide order dated 11.12.2008 on the reference as made by the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi to the concerned manager of the Committee of the Management of the Institution where the petitioner was rendering his services since 1.11.1976. The basis of the termination of the services of the petitioner that at the time of seeking appointment as well as at the time of joining over the post of Chowkidar, the age of the petitioner was less than the minimum prescribed age i.e. 18 years for the post of Chowkidar, the same has been proved as per the class 10 certificate issued by the U.P.Board wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 20.4.1959 and as such at the time of joining the petitioner attained only 17 years 6 months and 11 days and as such he was not having the minimum prescribed age for seeking appointment over the post of Chowkidar.

4. This fact has been came into the knowledge of the responsible responding authorities first time in the year 2008 over the complaint as made by some outsider on 25.7.2008 complaint made by some Bhrashtachar Unmoolan Samiti whereupon the service records of the petitioner have been verified and the same has been found that he has not attained the minimum prescribed age at the time of joining over the post of Chowkidar.

5. The order of termination has been put under challenge in the present petition, whereupon at the admission stage the indulgence has been drawn by this Court by way of issuing the interim protection vide order dated 23.1.2009 through which the services of the petitioner has been continued and after receiving the interim order dated 23.1.2009 proper disciplinary proceedings has been initiated by the responding authorities which continued till attaining the age of superannuation of the petitioner and the same has never been finalised in spite of the full cooperation rendered by the petitioner.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the fact which is apparent from record with regard to the age of the petitioner has never been denied and has been fairly conceded that at the time of joining over the post of Chowkidar, the petitioner was not eligible as per the minimum prescribed age mentioned in the rules for seeking appointment over the post of Chowkidar i.e. 18 years whereas at the time of joining the age of the petitioner was only 17 years 6 months and 11 days which is near about only less than 5 months and 19 days.

7. So far as the entire career of the petitioner is concerned, the services of the petitioner was highly satisfactory and the same was spotless, no disciplinary proceedings or any type of punishment has ever been initiated or fastened upon the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned Standing counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition by way of raising his arguments that the petitio

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top