Termination for Ineligibility Due to Child Policy Doesn't Mandate Departmental Inquiry: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-04-02

Latest Legal Developments.

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Termination of Employee for Violating Child Policy, No Departmental Inquiry Needed for Eligibility Issues

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee challenging her termination for ineligibility due to having more than two children, as per the recruitment advertisement's conditions. Justice Sanjay K.Agrawal , presiding over the case, ruled that no departmental inquiry was necessary as the termination was based on ineligibility, not misconduct.

Case Background

Tamin Bai Patel was appointed as Assistant Grade-III (AG-III) at Government Lalchakradhar Sah College in Rajnandgaon. Her appointment followed an advertisement that stipulated candidates should not have more than two living children born after January 26, 2001. Subsequently, complaints were raised alleging Patel violated this condition.

Initially, Patel denied having more than two children. However, following a second complaint, she disclosed that her eldest daughter had been given up for adoption on the same day the recruitment advertisement was issued. An enquiry committee was formed, which found that Patel had three living children, all born after the cut-off date. Based on this report, her services were terminated.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel argued that the termination order was stigmatic and implied misconduct. They contended that a departmental inquiry was mandatory before termination, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences . They argued that since the termination was based on an alleged infraction, a proper procedure should have been followed.

State Counsel countered that the enquiry was solely to verify eligibility based on the advertisement's criteria. They maintained that the termination was due to ineligibility and not based on any misconduct. They argued that the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary case was not applicable as it involved termination for misconduct after an ex-parte inquiry, whereas this case was about verifying basic eligibility. They referenced State of Rajasthan v. Kulwant Kaur , emphasizing that possessing essential qualifications is mandatory for continuing in a post.

Court's Observation and Decision

Justice Agrawal distinguished the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary case, noting that in that instance, the termination involved allegations of misconduct and a flawed ex-parte inquiry. In contrast, the present case solely concerned verifying if Patel met the eligibility criteria stated in the advertisement.

The court observed that the enquiry committee’s report, which confirmed Patel had three children born after the stipulated date, was based on available records and material. It also noted that the adoption of the eldest daughter was not legally established.

Referring to State of Rajasthan v. Kulwant Kaur , the court reiterated that possessing essential qualifications is a prerequisite for holding a post. Since Patel did not meet the eligibility criterion, the court found the termination justified.

> "For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner did not fulfill eligibility criteria for the post of AG-III as per clause 6(4)(ख) of the advertisement as at the time of appointment, she was having more than three children and all have born after 26.01.2001 and also the fact of adoption of her elder daughter has not been established in accordance with law. Therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly terminated the services of the petitioner by accepting the enquiry report dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure R/3) which, in my considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on material available on the record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records."

Ultimately, Justice Agrawal dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination order and reinforcing that terminations based on ineligibility due to not meeting advertised criteria do not necessitate a full departmental inquiry if the process is limited to verifying factual eligibility.