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

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
Ramesh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P.and other – Respondent
CWPOA/387/2019



Petitioner Advocates:Dilip Sharma Manish Sharma Manish Sharma Tejasvi Dogra ,Respondent Advocate: AG

If an employee is appointed without misrepresentation and the authority possesses the power to relax educational qualifications (having exercised it for others), discharging the employee for lack of qualification is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Educational Qualifications - Power to relax requirements - Where recruitment rules allow the competent authority to dispense with educational qualifications in special cases, and such power has been exercised for other similarly situated candidates, denying the same benefit to another candidate who did not misrepresent facts would be discriminatory and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 11, 12, 18)

(B) Termination of Service - Lack of qualification versus Misrepresentation - Where a candidate is appointed after scrutiny of testimonials and serves for a significant period without any proven intent to mislead or forge documents, it is iniquitous to terminate the services at a late stage due to an eligibility deficit that the appointing authority failed to detect or chose to overlook. (Paras 14, 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
An outstanding sportsman and national gold medalist was appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector under a sports quota. It was subsequently discovered that the graduation degree submitted was from an institution declared fake by the relevant regulatory body. The employee was discharged from service based on this lack of qualification. However, it was noted that another employee had been appointed to the same post with only a matriculation certificate through a relaxation of the educational requirements provided under the rules.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of forgery or misrepresentation by the employee at the time of application, as the institution was declared fake shortly after the application process had begun. Since the rules granted the authority the power to dispense with the educational qualification and this power had been exercised for others, the discharge was found to be harsh and legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a candidate appointed without misrepresentation can be discharged for lacking essential educational qualifications when the authority possesses the power to relax such requirements and has done so for other similarly situated employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when no misrepresentation is involved and the appointing authority has the discretion to relax educational criteria—and has exercised that discretion for others—the employee cannot be discharged on the ground of ineligibility. Such an action violates the principles of equality and fairness under the Constitution.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; petitioner entitled to count service from date of appointment until superannuation for the sole purpose of receiving pension.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.387 of 2019

Decided on: 13.05.2026

Ramesh Chauhan H ...Petitioner

Versus

State of HP and another ...Respondents

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the petitioner: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondeunts: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

(Oral)

1. Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced communication dated 15.05.2023, issued by Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh along with notification(s) dated 20.02.1981, which are taken on record

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 13.11.2009, Annexure P-19 may be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the impugned orders dated 16.3.2010, Annexure P-22 and order dated 17.06.2010, Annexure P-24 rejecting the appeal and revision petition of petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside;”

3. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner, who was National Gold Medalist in Judo/Kungfu, had submitted an application on 24.08.1993 (Annexure P-1) before respondent No.2, to offer him appointment as Inspector, Sub-Inspector or any eligible post under the Games Quota (Sports Quota). On receipt of the application, a process was initiated to recruit him against reservation for outstanding sportsmen, as per police Rule 12.1 of the Punjab Police (Himachal Amendment) Rules, 1994. As per communication dated 15.09.1993 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.2, Inspector General of Police, Armed Police training, H.P. was asked to verify the character antecedents of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to remain present to check his physical standard and for medical examination. After meeting the physical standards and checking of certificates, the petitioner was offered the appointment on 01.01.1994 (Annexure P-4) as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (for short ‘ASI’) w.e.f. 29.10.1993 F.N. in the H.P. Police Department against 1% reservation quota for outstanding sportsman against the reserve vacancy of Indian Reserve Battalion in the pay scale of Rs. 1410-45-1500-50-2000-60-2060-70-2480/- plus usual allowance attached to the post and the petitioner joined as ASI.

4. Later on while making the entries concerning the educational qualification of the petitioner in his character roll, a suspicion had arisen about the validity of his documents/degree of graduation i.e. B.A., obtained from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi (U.P.), as there was no mention about the marks obtained in different examinations viz. BA-II and BA-III. A show cause notice dated 03.02.1997 (Annexure P-6), was issued to the petitioner since the BA degree obtained by the petitioner is from a University, which has been declared as fake by the UGC and the degree/certificate awarded by this University is not entertained/accepted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and the petitioner being not eligible had succeeded in getting the appointment fraudulently, by producing B.A. certificate of aforesaid fake university, was called upon to show that why he should not be discharged from service for not possessing the required educational qualification for the post. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 10.02.1997 (Annexure P-7) and submitted that he is a National Gold Medalist in Judo/Kungfu and has got diploma of Judo from Sports Authority of India. At the time of submitting the application for appointment under sports quota, he had no knowledge regarding the fact that the university in question has been declared as fake and when he obtained the degree in 1989, at that time there was no such indication regarding alleged fakeness of the university. Moreover, many persons who had only cleared matriculation examination, have been offered appointment against the sports quota as ASIs. Since the petitioner has served for three years, it would cause gra

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