0

Date of Birth Not Grounds for Disqualification in IBPS Exam Application: Calcutta High court

#High court of Calcutta, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Reshmi Bhagat VS State of West Bengal and others

Case no.: WRIT PETITION No. 5442 of 2024

Dated on: 27th March 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a young lady, hailing from interior parts of Jalpaiguri, where internet connectivity is poor according to the petitioner, applied for taking the examinations for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for banks. The respondent no. 2, that is, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) was the common online platform conducting the said examinations. The petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted her credentials and duly filled up the requisite application form and submitted the same online for taking part in such examinations through a cybercafé with the help of her father. even after the petitioner passed the prelims and mains, when the petitioner’s turn came to be interviewed, certain discrepancies regarding her date of birth between the various documents submitted by her was apparently detected. According to the petitioner, the concerned banks left the decision as to whether to permit the petitioner to the respondent no. 2, which was in charge of conducting the examinations. Either way, since the age of the candidate was to be between 20 and 30 years at the relevant point of time, the petitioner fully qualified the said age criterion, whichever may be the date of birth taken for the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, challenges the decision of the respondents from letting her sit for the interview on the basis of such discrepancy.

ISSUES

  • Whether the discrepancy in the petitioner’s date of birth, as reflected in different documents, can disqualify her from participating in the interview process for the banking examinations.
  • Whether the eligibility criteria, specifically the date of birth mentioned in the online application, should be considered final and unmodifiable after submission.
  • Whether the petitioner’s limited access to internet facilities, given her background from an interior part of Jalpaiguri, should be taken into account in the scrutiny of her application.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The petitioner argues that the discrepancy in her date of birth should not disqualify her as it does not give her any undue advantage and thus should not be treated differently from others who might have similar minor errors.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article extends to the right to livelihood, meaning that arbitrary actions that could deprive someone of their means of livelihood, such as disqualifying a candidate on trivial grounds, may violate Article 21.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Counsel for appellant is argued that whereas the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner and her PAN Card, in consonance with her declaration in the application, showed her date of birth to be March 30, 2000, the birth certificate of the petitioner and, consequentially, her Indian School Certificate admit card depicted her date of birth as April 23, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported at (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1 for the proposition that if the person concerned gains no undue advantage and the mistake does not constitute wilful misrepresentation or fraud, considering the gravity of the lapse, the candidature can be permitted. Trivial omissions and errors, it is contended, cannot come in the way.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent IBPS argues that if the petitioner was armed with all the said documents, there was no conceivable reason why the petitioner disclosed her date of birth to be March 30, 2000, which is in contradistinction with her birth certificate and her ISC Admit Card. The rules are clear, it is submitted, to the effect that the eligibility criteria are to be satisfied by the concerned candidate by submission of due documents. It is further pointed out that as per the eligibility criteria, all particulars mentioned in the online application, inter alia including the date of birth of the candidate, will be considered as final and no challenge/modification will be allowed after submission of the online application form. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner loses out on the eligibility criteria itself and as such was rightly not considered for the interview.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The judgment cited by the petitioner is apt in the circumstances of the present case. The Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed that after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse and not for trivial omissions or errors. In the present case, the petitioner hails from the interior parts of the State where even proper internet facilities are not available. One can very well appreciate the impediments and handicaps under which such a person has uploaded the online application and furnished due details and credentials, which was done through a cybercafé, since the petitioner did not have the means to do the uploading from her own data pack. That apart, the object of such examinations for the banking sector and other public services is not to restrict the participation but to ensure that the participation reaches every nook and corner of the country, to the places which are not so advantaged as large townships or cities. It is not the case of the petitioner merely that she wants to have a modification of her online application. The petitioner places her case on a wider footing inasmuch as either of the dates of birth, if taken to be correct, would make the petitioner eligible as per the eligibility criterion regarding age. The object of a public examination cannot by any means be construed to be so restrictive as to be cruel on the candidates, particularly for brilliant people like the petitioner, who has already cleared the preliminary and mains in the tough banking examination concerned. The endeavor of the authorities ought to be encourage such people and not to shut them out on trivial issues. I do not find from the records that the petitioner could derive any undue advantage or, for that matter, any advantage whatsoever from the discrepancy in her date of birth, as either way, the petitioner would qualify on the eligibility criterion in respect of age. There does not arise any question, thus, of any willful misrepresentation on her part. The petitioner was permitted to take the prelims and mains and already crossed those hurdles and as such made herself eligible with flying colors to have an opportunity to participate in the interviews. Accordingly, the petitioner in the present case comes within the window as provided by the judgment of the Supreme Court, there being no gross anomaly or mala fides in the discrepancies relating to her date of birth. As such, for the purpose of the concerned banking examinations for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees, the petitioner is held to be fully qualified, since the documents submitted by her indicate that she is eligible in terms of age for participating in the said examinations. Since, the published timelines leave it open to the concerned banks to extend the date of interview till the end of this month, it is expected that the petitioner shall be permitted to have an interview with the concerned banks for the purpose of considering her candidature for the concerned posts. Accordingly, WPA No. 5442 of 2024 is allowed on contest, thereby directing the respondent no. 2-IBPS to immediately intimate the concerned banks that the petitioner is fully eligible for participation in the interviews for the examinations being held for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in banks. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2-IBPS shall publish the name of the petitioner in the provisional allotment list within 24 hours. Hence petition is allowed contest, thereby directing the respondent no. 2-IBPS to immediately intimate the concerned banks that the petitioner is fully eligible for participation in the interviews for the examinations being held for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in banks There will be no order as to costs.

“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 – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Calcutta High Court Orders Government to Accept Doctor’s Resignation for Parliamentary Election Candidacy

#High court of Calcutta, Blog , , ,

Case title: Dr. Pranat Tudu VS The State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case no.: WPA 8647 of 2024

Dated on: 22th March 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR Justice Rajasekhar Mantha

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner is a serving doctor with the Jhargram Government Medical College and Hospital, Vidyasagar Pally, Jhargram. The petitioner has tendered his resignation on 19th March, 2024 from Government Service on the sole ground that he intends to contest in the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections this year. In aid of such letter of resignation, the petitioner submitted a proforma as per the Rules of the State. Against the question at Question 20 of the proforma: “Whether the applicant is serving any Government Bond Obligation period (if, yes details of)”, the answer given by the petitioner is “Nil”, meaning No. The petitioner is extremely anxious to receive response from the Government. He has, therefore, approached this Court and prays for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents to forthwith accept his resignation application dated 19th March, 2024. The anxiety of the petitioner is that he would not get enough time to campaign for his election, if the Government delays the acceptance of resignation.

ISSUES

  • whether the petitioner has, in fact, executed any bond or not would take time.
  • whether the petitioner is serving any Government Bond Obligation or not.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 226 of the Constitution of India:  It states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purpose.

Clause 14 of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules: This clause seems to be relevant to the bond obligation or conditions related to resignation from government service.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The second objection taken by Mr. Sen is that the petitioner has suppressed materials facts in his proforma attached to the application for resignation. It is submitted that the writ petitioner had availed Study Leave between the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 for two years to undergo “DNB (PDCET-2020), Radiodiagnosis, Session 2020 at Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata – 700054. He was allowed such Study Leave subject to observance of West Bengal Service Rules, Part I, Appendix No.5, Clause 2(a). His leave salary during the Study Leave period would also be governed by the West Bengal Service Rules Part I, Appendix No.5, Clause 7(2). The petitioner was admittedly granted one-year initial Study Leave by an order dated 29th June, 2020. The leave was extended for a further period of 12 months on 29th July, 2021. The fourth point urged by Mr. Sen is that the benefit under Clause 14 Sub-Clause (3) sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not even have been pleaded in the writ petition. There is no application made to the Governor as on date.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Learned Senior Counsel for the State, Mr. Amal Kumar Sen has raised three-fold objections. The first objection is that the petitioner has not even given breathing time to the respondents to respond to petitioner’s application. The writ petition is, therefore, premature. Mr. Amal Kumar Sen has thirdly argued by reference to Clause 14 above, that the concept of public interest is vital to the invocation of any benefit under Clause 14. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim permanent discharge by resignation from the service of the State. No Writ of Mandamus, therefore, can be issued in favour of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts. In the event the petitioner had, in fact, executed any Bond the terms and conditions of such Bond would prevail over and above Appendix 5 and the restrictions contained thereunder. Such restrictions cannot be more stringent than Clause 14 of Appendix 5. It is only in respect of any gray area or matters not dealt with under any Bond that would have to be addressed by reference to the Clauses under Appendix 5.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts. In the event the petitioner had, in fact, executed any Bond the terms and conditions of such Bond would prevail over and above Appendix 5 and the restrictions contained thereunder. Such restrictions cannot be more stringent than Clause 14 of Appendix 5. It is only in respect of any gray area or matters not dealt with under any Bond that would have to be addressed by reference to the Clauses under Appendix 5. This Court is of the clear view that the petitioner is bound by Clause 14 of Appendix 5 and the same is a pre-condition for his resignation to be accepted. Across the Bar Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that his client is willing to refund all and every some specified in Clause 14 above. On the last objection raised by Mr. Amal Kumar Sen on the absence of pleadings for the benefit under Clause 14 of Appendix 5 to the West Bengal Service Rules, it is now well-settled that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always be moulded by the High Court. The absence of prayers and pleadings may only be fatal where a Rule or law is invoked wholly unconnected with or alien to the facts and circumstances pleaded in the writ petition. This Court is of the view that the benefit of Clause 14 of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules being sought by the petitioner is something that arises out of the facts of the case as also and the arguments advanced by both parties in respect of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules indicated hereinabove. On the issue of public interest being the primary consideration under Clause 14, apart from the same being directory, this Court is of the view that when any person seeks to contest an election to the post of a public representative, he is deemed as a person seeking to represent the public at large. There is, therefore, deemed public interest in a person seeking to contest in an election and to be a representative of the people. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the respondent No.2 to accept the resignation of the petitioner within a period of 48 hours of all and any refund being made by the petitioner under Clause 14 of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules referred to hereinabove. Upon making such refund, the petitioner shall be entitled to treat himself as having discontinued the service of the State. Any differences and deficit in calculation of the sums of money required to be deposited in terms of Clause 14 may be adjudicated against the petitioner and retained from any benefits of his service by the State paid under Clause 14 above. If any prayer under Clause 14 is entertained and allowed by the Governor, the respondent No.2 shall be obliged to refund such amounts to the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. The Court, therefore, should not entertain any plea of the writ petitioner in this context. He, therefore, prays that for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition ought to be dismissed. The Court, therefore, should not entertain any plea of the writ petitioner in this context. He, therefore, prays that for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition ought to be 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 – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

The opinion of the state Bar Council on professed misconduct doesn’t curtail the Disciplinary Committee’s Power To Examine the Maintainability Of Complaint: Calcutta HC

#High court of Calcutta, Blog

+W.P.A. No. 26174 of 2023

Somabrata Mandal Vs. Bar Council of West Bengal and others

CORAM: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

Judgment order dated: 13/12/23

Introduction

The High Court of Calcutta has recently contended that in a professed case of misconduct, The layout of the school of thought by the state bar council has enough reasons to believe that the advocate charged may be guilty of professional or other misconduct does not necessarily curtail the powers of the Disciplinary Committee to deal with the issue of maintainability of the complaint.

Facts of the case

The petitioner complained to the private respondents before the State Bar Council of West Bengal. Such complaint was received by the State Bar Council It is argued by the petitioner that the cut-off date for disposal of the said complaint as per Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 was one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint. It is stipulated in Section 36B(1) of the said Act that failing such disposal, proceedings shall stand automatically transferred to the Bar Council of India, which may dispose of the same as if it was a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under Section 36(2) of the Act.

The matter has been referred to the Disciplinary Committee by the State Bar Council only recently for adjudging the maintainability of the same. It is argued that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee to decide the issue of maintainability as well. counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Section 35(1) of the said Act. It is contended that the same envisages a reference to the Disciplinary Committee. Sub-section (1) of Section 35, provides that where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has “reason to believe” that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.

Senior Counsel cites Achal Saxena (dead) and Anr. Vs. Sudhir Yadav reported at (2017) 13 SCC 657, where it was held that given Section 36B of the Act, the State Bar Council was obliged to transfer the inquiry to the Bar Council of India after expiry of one year from the receipt of the complaint. argued by the respondents that in the absence of the existence of the jurisdictional facts which constitute a complaint under Section 35, the complaint of the petitioner itself should be rejected as not maintainable. Learned senior counsel cites Bhagwan s/o Maharudrappa Chougale Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru, and others reported at 2019 (2) AKR 397, where it was observed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court that the Disciplinary Committee, based on documents and affidavits, can decide the issue of whether jurisdictional facts are existent and, accordingly, can also decide and determine the maintainability of a complaint. A jurisdictional fact is one on the existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a Court, a Tribunal or an Authority. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, it was observed, the Court, Authority, or Officer cannot act.

reiterated that the Disciplinary Committee has ample power to decide the issue of maintainability on an examination of whether jurisdictional facts at all exist in the complaint.

the first and primary objection taken by the petitioner to the proceeding before the Disciplinary Committee of the West Bengal State Bar Council is turned down, The second issue raised is whether the reference to the Disciplinary Committee also on the issue of maintainability of the complaint is valid.

In support of his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the language of Section 35(1). A comprehensive perusal of the scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council Rules, however, indicates unerringly that the State Bar Council only forms a preliminary opinion as to the alleged professional or other misconduct.

Analysis of the court

The court did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the State Bar Council or the pendency of the matter before its Disciplinary Committee. However, nothing in this order confers a mandate to the Disciplinary Committee to extend its exercise of adjudication beyond the period of one year from the date of reference of the complaint to it, which would be de hors Section 36B(1), comprising the mandate of the Statute.

Accordingly, in the light of the above observations is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

“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.”

Written by Kaulav Roychowdhury

Click to View the Judgment

0

Income tax credit flatters to empowered right only if the requirements are fulfilled – Calcutta High court

#High court of Calcutta, Blog

+MAT NO. 1099 OF 2023

M/S. BBA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VERSUS SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND OTHERS

Appearance

Appellant: Mr. Vinay Shraff, Advocate. Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Ld. Additional Government Pleader. Mr. T. Chakraborty, Advocate. Mr. S. Sanyal, Advocate.

Date of the Order: 13/12/2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Introduction

The High Court of Calcutta contended that the input tax credit (ITC) under Section 16(1) of the GST Act flatters to empowered right only if the qualifications to receive it are fulfilled.

Facts of the case

Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that though this appeal is against an order refusing to grant interim orders, requested this Court to hear the writ petition as well as questions of law are involved in the writ petition and may not even require an affidavit to be filed by the respondent. Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that one opportunity may be granted to the respondents to file their affidavit-in opposition which request was granted by order, after the affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent, the appeal as well as the writ petition were heard and are now disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The appellant filed the writ petition challenging an order-in-appeal and sought a consequential direction upon the respondent to refund the tax amounting to Rs.28,63,680/- which is alleged to have been recovered by the appellant over 10% of the disputed tax amount and to prohibit the respondents from taking further cohesive action against the appellant. The order impugned in the writ petition was passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the GST Act) whereby the Input Tax Credit availed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 28,65,780/- from the period from November 2018 to March 2019 was denied on the ground that the returns for the said period were filed beyond the statutory time limit stipulated in Section 16(4) of the GST Act.

Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to explain why Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 28,64,780/- for the period from November, 2018 to March, 2019 should not be denied as returns for the FY 2018-19 were filed beyond the statutory time limit that is 29.10.2019. The appellant by representation requested for an extension of time. the second respondent passed an order directing the appellant to pay tax, penalty and interest on the ground that the statute has set down a time frame within which a taxable registered person can claim ITC. The appellant appears to have not paid the tax, penalty and interest as demanded and the reminder was sent by the department to deposit the entire dues on or before 10.09.2021. The appellant did not comply with the demand and consequently, the department on 11.09.2021 debited the amount from the electronic cash ledger/ credit ledger of the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before the statutory appellate authority.

Judgment used by the court in command Union of India Versus Bharti Airtel Ltd ,  wherein the late fee payable under Section 47 of the Act was waived. Global Ltd. Versus. Union of India, in the case of the appellant the returns were filed well beyond the period stipulated under Section 16(4). The imposition of penalty was well justified as the appellant had committed fraud by making a false and dishonest representation in GSTR-3B return for the aforementioned period and claimed ineligible ITC and thereby reducing the net tax liability. The State of Tamil Nadu Versus M.K. Kandaswami and Others 3 ALD Automotive Private Limited 4 TVS Motor Company Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Others , The decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Thirumalakonda Plywoods Versus The Assistant Commissioner- State Tax WP 24235 of 2022 dated 18.07.2023 and the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Gobinda Construction Versus Union of India and others in Civil Writ Jurisdiction.

Analysis of the court

The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that section 16(2) is not a provision that allows income tax credit rather section 16(1) authorizes provision and section 16(2) imposes a limit on credit that is otherwise allowed to dealers who fulfilled the requirements prescribed by the interpretation given by the court that the stipulation in Section 16(2) is the restrictive provision is the correct interpretation given to Section 16(1) of the GST Act.

all the above reasons, we find no ground to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition.

Consequently, the appeal as well as the writ petition are 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.”

Written by Kaulav Roychowdhury

Click to view the judgment

0

The High Court of Calcutta endorsed order Cancelling the Appointment Of 94 Teachers Found Ineligible Under the 2014 Eligibility Test

#High court of Calcutta, Blog

WPA 9979 of 2022

Soumen Nandy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha

Introduction

The High Court of Calcutta has recently endorsed its order canceling the appointment letters of 94 teachers, who were found unqualified under the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted in 2014.

 

Facts of the case

an application for the addition of parties filed by ninety applicants claiming themselves to be prejudicially affected by the order passed by this Bench on 10th October The aforesaid order was passed relying upon a report in the form of the affidavit filed by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education with a finding that ninety-four candidates did not qualify in TET 2014 but were issued appointment letter. The Board arrived at the finding described above after verification of all records. The said ninety-four candidates were allowed to produce documents in support of their educational qualification, but as the said candidates were unable to produce any document in support of their TET qualification, the Board found them to be ineligible for appointment.

Under such circumstances, the Court directed the respective District Primary Schools Councils to cancel the letter of appointment issued in favor of the ninety-four candidates who did not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as primary school teachers.

Learned senior counsel representing the applicants submits that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 10th October 2023, the Primary School Council has canceled the letter of appointment issued in favor of the applicants and terminated their service.

It has been submitted that there has been no suppression of material facts by the applicants in the recruitment process. The applicants produced all the educational certificates supporting their candidature; relying upon which letter of appointment was issued. The applicants are in service for a considerable period, that is, from the year 2017 to 2023, and by this time they have acquired a permanent status in service. The Council could not have terminated their service without initiating any disciplinary proceeding against them The submissions of the applicants have been strongly opposed by the learned advocates representing the writ petitioners and the learned advocate representing the applicants.

The court noted that despite not being TET qualified, the candidates were issued letters of appointment, and the same was the subject of ongoing proceedings and investigation by central agencies.

It was found that even the division bench had declined to interfere with the single-bench order since the appellants had not disclosed their TET certificates, which had not been done on the present occasion as well. The judgment referred by the court

Pramod Kumar vs. UP Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153

 the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that if the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment that is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law, a nullity. The Court further held that a candidate must establish the existence of a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the State. If he did not possess the requisite qualifications to hold a post, he could not have any legal right to continue. It is, therefore, immaterial whether any proceeding is initiated against him or not.       National Fertilizer Limited vs. Somvir Singh reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493

 it was inter alia held that if the appointment is made without following the Rules, the same being a nullity, the question of confirming the employees would not arise. Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 2615

 the Court held that the employees whose appointment was illegal and void ab initio cannot be said to be civil servants of the State. There is no requirement to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them for terminating their service.

Analysis of the court

the Court is not convinced that the applicants possess the requisite educational qualification for appointment as primary school teachers in terms of the recruitment notice and, as such, the Court declines to allow the applications filed by them seeking addition and modification of the subject order.

The Council recommended the termination of ineligible candidates after observing the principles of natural justice. Had the applicants not been given the opportunity of hearing or the applicants not been given a chance to produce testimonials in support of their educational qualification, then the case would have been otherwise. As it appears that, the order of termination was rightly issued on detection of the ineligibility of the applicants to be appointed as primary school teachers, accordingly, the Court refrains from modifying/ vacating/ varying the order as sought for by the applicants.

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 falls into the 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.”

Written By

Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

Click to view the judgment