Petitioner is far from being eligible to apply for selection, as she indulged in the deplorable act of giving false information: Bombay High Court.
On Tuesday, the 2nd of August, in the year 2022, The Bombay High Court passed a judgement against the petitioner as she filed wrongful information at the time of her job application. This judgement was seen in the case of Supriya Vinayak Gawande vs. The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.5294 Of 2019) and the case was presided over by a bench comprising of The Honourable Mr. Justice Mangesh S. Patil and The Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgement pronounced by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in which the learned Tribunal set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner and directed appointment of the respondent in her place.
In this case, the petitioner and the respondent applied in pursuance of an advertisement and in the advertisement, there was information regarding enrolling for the post of Talathi. There were 40 posts of Talathi advertised and were divided into various categories and it appears that one of the posts was reserved for NT-C Female category.
The petitioner states that she belongs to the NT-C category and as per the requirement of the advertisement, she had in her possession a Non-Creamy Layer status certificate issued on 26.06.2013, which was valid until 31.03.2015 and accordingly she stated the issuance number of the certificate in the online application form. The petitioner in her online application form wrongly stated that it was valid until 31.03.2016, when it was only valid until 31.03.2015. The advertisement required a Non- Creamy Layer Certificate that was issued after 01.03.2015, and as per the court records it appears that the petitioner procured a fresh Non-Creamy Layer status Certificate dated on 17.07.2015 which was valid until 31.03.2018.
The petitioner says that she was not supposed to upload any certificate along with her online application form and that mere possession of the certificate was sufficient and on the date of the document verification she was in possession of the fresh certificate issued on 17.07.2015, which she produced during the process of document verification. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Talathi via appointment on order dated 01.12.2015 and she joined the post on 02.12.2015.
After the appointment, the selection and appointment of the petitioner was questioned by respondent by instituting that the petitioner gave incorrect information in the online application form and additionally, it was also contended that the petitioner did not possess Non-Creamy Layer Status Certificate issued after 01.04.2015 on the date of filling up of online form.
The tribunal was approached, and the learned Tribunal passed an order dated on 22.04.2019 holding that the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate furnished by the petitioner violated three mandatory conditions of the advertisement. Therefore, the tribunal held that the participation of the petitioner and her selection in the process was illegal and proceeded to set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner and directed appointment of the respondent in her place.
JUDGEMENT:
The court came to the conclusions that the petitioner was far from being eligible to apply for the selection. The court condemned the petitioner for indulging in the deplorable act of giving false information in the form and the court stated that the petitioner was inconsistent with the requirement of the advertisement as she did not have the eligible certificate on the day of application. The court upheld the order passed by the Learned tribunal and the petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY TANAV ZACHARIAH.