Suppression of higher qualification disqualifies a candidate for appointment; employer's discretion in setting eligibility criteria is upheld.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri CH. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-P.9) whereby the department opined that the petitioner was ineligible for competing for the post of Office Subordinate and therefore, her appointment was cancelled. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no departmental enquiry has been conducted before passing the impugned order of termination of service. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family and passed the examination and therefore, the action taken by the respondents is bad in law.

3. Sounding a contra note, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement, which is based on the statutory requirement rules, the candidate should have passed Class-VII examination or its equivalent. Candidate, who failed Class-X examination, will also be considered eligible, but those who have higher qualification than that will not be considered eligible. In the teeth of this provision, petitioner was put to notice and her response was taken into account. Since she did not dispute that she possessed the higher qualification namely, Secondary School Certificate (‘SSC’) and passed the examination in the year 2011, she was clearly ineligible as per the advertisement and rules. Thus, even if an enquiry would have been conducted, petitioner would not have been in a position to take a different stand in relation to educational qualification. By placing reliance on a decision of Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reported in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v. Anit Kumar Das , (2021) 12 SCC 80 learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that no fault can be found in the impugned order.

4. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. We have heard the parties at length on admission.

6. On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner clearly admitted that he is not disputing the finding given in the impugned order regarding the eligibility condition of the candidate. It is also not in dispute that petitioner possessed higher qualification than the minimum essential qualification and such higher qualification of SSC was clearly a bar and making the petitioner as ineligible. It is also not in dispute that petitioner suppressed the fact of having higher qualification of SSC. Pertinently, in para No. 4 of the affidavit/petition, the petitioner has mentioned that “Therefore under the pressure of my elders and well wishers I was forced to state that I am not studied Higher Education and not possessing the certificates and further requested to drop further reaction (sic.).” Thus, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner knowingly and willfully suppressed the information regarding possessing higher qualification of SSC.

7. Thus, twin questions arise for our consideration are: (i) whether the suppression of fact relating to possessing higher qualification can have any adverse impact on the appointment of the petitioner? And (ii) whether the Department was justified in putting such eligibility condition and whether said condition can deprive the petitioner from the fruits of appointment order being an ineligible candidate?

8. The aforesaid points are no more res integra. Curtains are drawn by the Apex Court in the case of Anit Kumar Das (supra). In para No. 18, the Apex Cou