ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare

(a) the exclusion of Graduate Degree of in Pharmacy i.e., B.Pharm, with Bio Chemistry, from the qualifications required to fill up the post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the respondent organization, as illegal and arbitrary;

(b) that the Graduate Degree of in Pharmacy i.e., B.Pharm, with Bio Chemistry, is also sufficient to fill up the post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the respondent organization;

(c) to set aside the impugned orders i.e., (i) No.1(2)/2014/QC/Personnel, dated 20.06.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 and (ii) No.RPI/1-2/KRR/APPEAL/SZ/2014, dated 08.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 and (iii) No.2(1)/2018/NZ/ZE/736, dated 21.08.2019 issued by the respondent No.1; and

(d) to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service of the respondent corporation with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 issued employment notification dated 25.08.2012, calling for applications for the post of Assistant Grade-III in General, Depot and Technical cadres and the last date for submissions of application was 21.09.2012. The petitioner has submitted online application and was issued Hall Ticket and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the written examination and later he was selected for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical). The petitioner was thus appointed and joined the service on 16.06.2014. Subsequently, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.10.2016, alleging that he has opted for Assistant Grade-III (Technical) without having the prescribed qualification. An enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report dated 13.09.2017 was submitted and on the basis of such inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide orders dated 20.06.2018. The petitioner preferred a review, which was dismissed on 21.08.2019 and the Assistant Commissioner (Labour) also dismissed the application on 24.03.2021 and the petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had the qualification of B.Pharmacy as on the date of the notification and the petitioner has disclosed all the necessary information and that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Grade-III ‘Depot’ and ‘General’, but he was issued a Hall Ticket for ‘Technical’ and the petitioner has participated in the examination and at the time of appointment also, after due verification of the certificates, he was given the appointment order. Therefore, according to him, there was no misrepresentation on his part and dismissal from service after conducting an enquiry is stigmatic and the petitioner has lost opportunities of public employment even after due to the same. He also submitted that the enquiry has not been conducted properly and that all the relevant documents though filed by the petitioner have not been referred to and have not been considered and therefore, the inquiry was also flawed.

4. He placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.B.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, in support of his contention that the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e., beyond all reasonable doubt and that the inquiry officer cannot shift the burden of proof and he cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 424, for the proposition that where there is an error committed by the respondents in the matter of employment, the employee should not be made to suffer. He also referred to the judg