A specific certificate from an educational institution regarding a candidate's result date prevails over general administrative information unless the department proves the specific certificate is false through a proper enquiry.

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Ms. L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the petitioners; and Mr. Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners / Department under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in OA/021/0098/2017, decided on 11.11.2024.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the aforesaid OA filed by the respondent herein setting aside the order dated 10.12.2016, in Letter. No.LB/12/EMP/MSK/2016, and directed the Department to give appointment to the respondent in accordance with law and also directed the Department to maintain the seniority of the respondent. However, applying the principle of ‘No work No pay’ the back wages part was refused to the respondent.

4. The order dated 10.12.2016 which was set aside by the Tribunal was in fact an order of cancellation of the candidature of the respondent for the post of Danger Building Worker (Semi-Skilled) (for short ‘DBW’).

5. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner No.2 had issued a notification on 29.11.2014 for filling up of various posts, including that of DBW and the last date for applying, as per the notification was on 19.12.2014. The respondent had applied for the said post of DBW as per the notification and submitted his online application well within the time. The respondent declared himself fully qualified for the post for which he had applied. Subsequently, the order of selecting the respondent along with others was published by the Department. However, so far as the respondent’s candidature is concerned, it was observed that his selection was provisionally subject to the production of documentary evidence of having been essentially qualified on or before 19.12.2014.

6. The respondent had furnished a certificate issued by the Principal of the College from where he had pursued his General Fitter course during the academic session 2012-14, a certificate of the examinations being conducted in July, 2014 and the results having been published in October, 2014, and the National Trade Certificate issued on 23.02.2015. Meanwhile, however, the Department had approached The Director, Employment and Training, Hyderabad and sought for a clarification as regards the results of the All India Trade Test under (CTS) July, 2014. The Director of Employment and Training vide his letter dated 06.01.2016 furnished information to the Department informing that the results of All India Trade Test under (CTS) July, 2014 were declared on 30.12.2014. Based upon the said document issued by the Director of Employment and Training, the order dated 10.12.2016 was passed by petitioner No.2 whereby it was ordered for cancellation of selection of the respondent on the ground of having not acquired the requisite qualification on or before the period prescribed in the notification issued on 19.12.2014, which was the last date for applying for the said post.

7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.12.2016, the respondent approached the Tribunal vide OA/021/0098/2017 challenging the order of cancellation of appointment. The Tribunal upon perusing the entire materials made available before it, more particularly taking cognizance of the letter issued by the Principal dated 26.11.2015 certifying that the respondent had participated in the said course of General Fitter for the academic session 2012-14 and the exams of the said course being held in July, 2014 and the results being declared in October, 2014, allowed the said OA vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2024.

8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the petitioners opposing the impugned order contended that it is a case where the Tribunal has n