The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
Writ Appeal No.145 of 2020
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present appeal arises out of order dated 27.11.2019, passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26219 of 2013.
2. The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was issued in
March, 2012, inviting applications for the post of Hindi Typist and
the respondent/employee submitted his application. The essential
qualifications required for the post, as contained in Clause 9 of the advertisement, are reproduced as under:
"i. Bachelor Degee from a recognised University with Hindi as a subject.
ii. Should possess speed of 25 WPM in Hindi Typewriting with possession of Lower Grade Certificate in Hindi Typewriting from the State Board of Technical Education. iii. Working knowledge of computers in Hindi."
3. The facts of the case further reveal that the appellants, after conducting a regular process of selection, selected the respondent/employee and issued an offer of appointment on 17.07.2012. The respondent/employee reported to duty on 26.07.2012 and while he was discharging his duties, an order was passed putting an end to his services. The last paragraph of the order of termination dated 22.05.2013 is reproduced as under:
"Inasmuch as it is evident that 2
1. Shri Ubaid Mohammad has made false claims along with his application.
2. Shri Ubaid Mohammad has made false claims before the Interview Committee and secured undue advantage over other candidates.
3. Shri Ubaid Mohammad would have been considered ineligible in the absence of certificates furnished by him on his own along with the application.
4. Shri Ubaid Mohammad instead of authenticating the records from NIIT, Mahaboobabad, Warangal, where he is said to have pursued the course has attempted to get an endorsement from NIIT, Basheer- bagh, Hyderabad. The fact that NIIT, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad has affixed its stamp only on a photocopy of the certificate and not on the original certificate clearly indicates that Shri Ubaid Mohammad has attempted to fabricate the records.
5. Shri Ubaid Mohammad refused to avail the opportunity granted (based on his request) for relearning skills, which were claimed by him along with his application.
6. Shri Ubaid Mohammad is not willing to undertake responsibilities in web programming with multimedia and web designing & breached the submission made by him before the Interview Committee.
7. Shri Ubaid Mohammad is in the habit of misleading the authorities and is not trustworthy.
8. Shri Ubaid Mohammad is not willing to abide by the terms and conditions indicated in the offer of appointment. (Condition no.11 of Offer of appointment No.2(24)/2011-Estt., dated 17.07.2012).
9. Shri Ubaid Mohammad's actions constitutes grave misconduct."
3
4. Meaning thereby, a stigmatic order was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner had submitted a degree from recognised university and Hindi Type Writing examination certificate and it is not in dispute. The dispute is in respect of certificate produced by the petitioner about his working knowledge of computers in Hindi. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under:
"6. The Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 has contended that admittedly, the petitioner could not produce the certificates to the effect that he is having workable knowledge in computers. It is contended that in para 14 (c) of the writ affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has clearly admitted that he is not having computer 5 knowledge and computer skills, which establishes that he had misled the selection Committee and got appointed deceitfully. It is further contended that based on petitioner's false claim that he is having working knowledge of computers and computer skills, the selection Committee has recommended his case for appointment by overlooking the other qualified candidates, and ultimately, the petitioner was not in a position to demonstrate before the respondents that he is having computer knowledge and skills, and inspite of giving several opportunities, he could not produce the certificates to show that he is having computer knowledge and computer skills. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment orders were rightly cancelled and that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner is possessing the essential qualifications as set out in the notification, namely, a degree from recognized University with Hindi as a subject, a speed of 25 W.P.M. in Hindi Typewriting and working knowledge of computers in Hindi. For one to have working knowledge of computers, he need not possess any certificate and it would be sufficient if he is in a position to work on computers in Hindi. As 4 the petitioner is having all the qualifications as set out in the notification, the respondents have erred in cancelling the appointment orders. The contention of respondents that the petitioner could not produce certificates to show that he is having working knowledge in computers in Hindi, is not tenable, as the same is not the requirement as per the notification. Therefore, on this ground 6 also, the impugned order cancelling the appointment of petitioner, is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.05.2013, passed by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. No order as to costs."
5. In the present case, the petitioner has disclosed all information in the form submitted by him in respect of working knowledge of computers. He has produced certificates in respect of working knowledge of computers, but that certificate was not relied upon by the appointing authority and the appointing authority has gone to the extent in stating that the petitioner has submitted false information about working knowledge of computers.
6. The process of selection was open and transparent. If an employee was not having working knowledge of computers, in the first place, why he was selected by the appointing authority. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for respondent/employee that the employee in question, at the time of his appointment, was subjected to test in respect of working knowledge of computers.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent/employee and a stigmatic 5 order of termination has been passed, the impugned order passed by appellant No.1 is certainly bad in law and has rightly been quashed. Keeping in view judgment delivered in the case of D.K.Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited1, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. However, it is made clear that the respondent/employee will not be entitled for backwages and shall be entitled for all other consequential benefits. The appellants/authorities shall certainly feel free to conduct a proper enquiry in case they so desire in respect of the certificates submitted by the petitioner.
8. Writ Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand disposed of.
_______________________ Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ ____________________ A. Rajasheker Reddy, J Date: 08.11.2021 lur 1 (1993) 3 SCC 259