Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 51
2007(2) JLJ 425
R.K. Gupta, J.
Triveni Sharan Mishra v. Life Insurance Corporation of India
and others
Writ Petition(S) No.542 of 2004 (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.1.2006.
M.S. Bhatti for petitioner;
D.K. Dixit for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- management debarring candidate for having more academic qualification than minimum required for the post -- act is not only arbitrary but also violative of Art. 14.
(2) Civil Servant -- recruitment -- candidate cannot be debarred for having qualification more than minimum required for the post.
The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet which is Annexure P-3 to the petition. The petitioner has been charged for misconduct that when he submitted an application for the post of peon on 20th January, 1996 he has shown his educational qualification as Higher Secondary (Class 11th, old course) though the petitioner was possessing bachelor‘s degree. It was also found that the petitioner has carried out his studies by getting admission in B.A. Part III and subsequently also sought admission in M.A. (previous) in Economics. Thus, according to the Management, this conduct of the petitioner is a conduct which is a misconduct for which the petitioner was charge-sheeted. [Para 3
Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 30th October, 2000, which is Annexure P-11 to the petition, and directed to impose a penalty of removal from service including the forfeiture of terminal benefits. [Para 7
Held : Petitioner is correct in his submission that if the petitioner is over-qualified then that will not be a bar in getting the employment. Ignoring the candidates having more or over-qualification than the prescribed has already been held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the apex Court in the judgment as reported in 2000(2) SCC 606 [Mohd. Riazul Usman Gain and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur]. The said judgment would be relevant in the present case to ascertain whether a person who has the over-qualification will not be qualified or will not be eligible to get the employment. If the persons having higher qualification are ignored as they possess the higher qualification than the minimum qualification prescribed for the post then it may lead to discrimination and therefore it is not a case where a person having higher qualification would be debarred from getting the employment. Thus, in the present case there does not seem to be a case of material suppression which could have debarred from getting the employment for the petitioner. (2000)2 see 606 followed. 2003 (1) JLJ 403 (SC) distinguished. [Para 13
(3) Civil Servant -- charges against two employees same -- cannot be discriminated in punishment. (2001)10 SCC 530 followed. WP No.3334 of 2004 relied on. [Paras 20 & 22
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 && in ds fy, visf{kr U;wure ls vf/kd vdknfed ;ksX;rk okys vH;FkhZ dk izca/ku }kjk cfg"dkj && dk;Z dsoy euekuk gh ugha] vuq-14 dk vfrØe.kdkjh gSA
¼2½ flfoy lsod && HkrhZ && in ds fy, visf{kr U;wure ls vf/kd ;ksx;rk okyk vH;FkhZ && cfg"d`r ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
;kph dks vkjksii= tkjh fd;k x;k tks ;kfpdk dk mikca/k ih&3 gSA ;kph bl vopkj ds fy, vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS fd 20 tuojh 1996 dks tc mlus pijklh ds in ds fy, vkosnu fd;k] mlus viuh ‘kSf{kd ;ksX;rk mPprj ek/;fed ¼d{kk 11] iqjkuk ikB~;Øe½ crkbZ Fkh] ;|fi ;kph Lukrd fMxzh/kkjh FkkA ;g Hkh ik;k x;k Fkk fd ;kph us ch-,- Hkkx 3 esa izos‘k izkIr dj ds rFkk rRi‘pkr~ vFkZ‘kkL= esa ,e-,- ¼iwokZ)Z½ esa izos‘k dh bZIlk dj ds Hkh viuk v/;;u pkyw j[kk FkkA bl izdkj] izca/ku ds vuqlkj] ;kph dk ;g vkpj.k vopkj gS ftlds fy, ;kph ij vkjksii= tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA ¼iSjk 3
rRi‘pkr~ vuq‘kklu izkf/kdkjh us vk{ksfir vkns‘k fnukad 30 vDVwcj 2000 ikfjr fd;k tks ;kfpdk dk mikca/k ih&11 gS vkSj lsok&lekfIr ds Qk;nksa dk leigj.k lfgr lsok ls gVk, tkus dh ‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir fd, tkus dk funs‘k fn;kA ¼iSjk 4
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph us ;g fuosnu lgh fd;k gS fd ;fn ;kph dh ;ksx;rk vf/kd gS rc og fu;kstu ds fy, otZu ugha gksxkA ¼2002½2 ,l lh lh 606 [eksgEen fj;ktqy mLeku xuh rFkk vU; fo- ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh‘k] ukxiqj] esa ;Fkk laizdkf‘kr fu.kZ; esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fofgr ls vf/kd vFkok vfr&;ksX;rk okys vH;FkhZ dh mis{kk euekuh vkSj Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 dh vfrØe.kdkjh gksuk igys&gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj fn;k x;k gSA mDr fu.kZ;] izLrqr ekeys esa ;g vfHkfuf‘pr fd, tkus ds fy, lqlaxr gksxk fd D;k vfr&;ksX;rk okyk O;fDr fu;kstu izkIr djus ds fy, vgZ ugha gksxk vFkok ik= ugha gksxkA ;fn in ds fy, fofgr U;wure ls vf/kd ;ksX;rk okys O;fDr;ksa dh mis{kk dh tkrh gS rc bldk ifj.kke foHksn gksxkA blfy, ;g ,slk ekeyk ugha gS ftlesa mPprj ;ksX;rk okyk O;fDr fu;kstu izkIr djus ls cfg"d`r dj fn;k tk,A bl izdkj] izLrqr ekeys esa rkfRod fNiko dk ekeyk izrhr ugha gksrk ftlls ;kph dks fu;kstu izkIr djus ls cfg"d`r fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ¼2000½2 ,l lh lh 606 vuqlfjrA 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 403 ¼mPpre U;k-½ izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 13
¼3½ flfoy lsod && nks deZpkfj;ksa ds fo:) vkjksi le:i && naM esa HksnHkko ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2001½10 ,l lh lh 530 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-3334 lu~ 2004 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 22
1. The petitioner by way of filing the present petition before this Court has challenged the order dated 30th October, 2000, which is Annexure P-11 to the petition. This order has been passed by the Senior Divisional Manager by which the penalty of removal from serviced has been imposed on the petitioner and also forfeiture of the terminal benefits as a penalty has been passed.
2. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Zonal Manager-cum-appellate authority which has been rejected on 18.2.2003, which is Annexure P-13 to the petition.
3. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet which is Annexure P-3 to the petition. The petitioner has been charged for misconduct that when he submitted an application for the post of peon on 20th January, 1996 he has shown his educational qualification as Higher Secondary (Class 11th, old course) though the petitioner was possessing bachelor's degree. It was also found that the petitioner has carried out his studies by getting admission in B.A. Part III and subsequently also sought admission in M.A. (previous) in Economics. Thus, according to the Management, this conduct of the petitioner is a conduct which is a misconduct for which the petitioner was charge-sheeted.
4. Petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet, the copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P-4 to the petition. The petitioner while submitting the reply to charge-sheet stated that he has shown his educational qualification in the application form as 11th class passed and the over qualification since was not coming in his way in submitting the application, therefore, he has not mentioned the same. He submitted that he was not having intention to suppress over qualification which he was possessing.
5. As against the aforesaid charge-sheet the Management decided to conduct a departmental enquiry and accordingly an inquiry was conducted. In the departmental enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges by the inquiry officer. The findings recorded by the inquiry officer are Annexure P-8 to the petition.
6. That, thereafter a show cause notice. Annexure P-9 to the petition, was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed on him along with the penalty of forfeiture of terminal benefits.
7. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 30th October, 2000, which is Annexure P-11 to the petition, and directed to impose a penalty of removal from service including the forfeiture of terminal benefits. The petitioner submitted a detailed appeal to the appellate authority, which was considered and rejected by an order Annexure P-14 dated 13th October, 2003.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case the counsel for the petitioner submitted that possessing over qualification is not a bar in acquiring the employment. It is also submitted that if the minimum qualification is prescribed for the post of peon such as in the present case then persons those who are having higher qualification cannot be debarred from applying to the post by submitting their candidature. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment as reported in (2002)2 SCC 606 [Mohd. Riaazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others] and submitted that the apex Court has already decided that if a candidate is having higher qualification then the candidate as such cannot be debarred because he has over qualification with him than the minimum qualification prescribed for the post.
9. The apex Court has already held in the aforesaid judgment that if the Management debars the candidates having over qualification by insisting upon the minimum qualification then such an act of the Management would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reprodu
