Chagan Rameshwar Dandge vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4506 Bom

                                     1             WP-9850.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                     
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                            
                      WRIT PETITION NO.9850 OF 2015

    Chagan Rameshwar Dandge,
    Age 29 years, Occ.Nil,
    r/o. Wajar Bk.,




                                           
    Tq. Jintoor, Dist. Parbhani           ..Petitioner

                  Vs.




                                    
    1. The State of Maharashtra,
       Through Secretary, 
       Rural Development Dept.,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai
                              
    2. The Collector,
                             
       Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli,

    3. Chief Executive Officer,
       Zilla Parishad, Hingoli,
      

       Dist. Hingoli                      ..Respondents 
   



                             --
    Mr.H.K.Mundhe, advocate for petitioner

    Mr.A.G.Magre, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2





    Mr.B.A.Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.3
                             --

                           CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND





                                   SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 
                     RESERVED ON : JULY 07, 2016          
                   PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 05, 2016 

    JUDGMENT (PER SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) :

Heard.

2 WP-9850.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

With consent of the parties, heard finally.

3. The petitioner has challenged the vires

of the order dated 14.09.2015 issued by respondent

no.3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Hingoli, whereby his services as Junior Accounts

Officer came to be terminated from the date of the

said order.

4. In response to an advertisement dated

22.08.2014, the petitioner applied for the post of

Junior Accounts Officer since he was possessing

Bachelor's Degree in Arts and also had experience

of five years to work as an Accounts Clerk in a

Co-operative Credit Society. After subjecting the

petitioner to requisite tests, respondent no.3

selected and appointed him as per the order dated

09.12.2014 to work as a Junior Accounts Officer in

Panchayat Samiti at Sengaon. Accordingly, he

3 WP-9850.odt

joined the said post and started working as a

Junior Accounts Officer.

5. One Gajanan Tukaram Chavan sent a

complaint against the petitioner to respondent

no.3 alleging that the petitioner had produced a

bogus experience certificate. Accordingly, a

Committee headed by respondent no.2 - Collector

and comprising of seven members including

respondent no.3, came to be constituted to enquire

into the allegations made against the petitioner.

The petitioner was extended an opportunity of

hearing. His statement was recorded. One Shankar

Khushalrao Giri, who had issued the experience

certificate to the petitioner, was examined before

the Committee.

6. After considering the material that was

produced during the enquiry, the Enquiry Committee

in the meeting dated 31.07.2015, held that the

4 WP-9850.odt

petitioner did not possess the requisite

experience of five years after obtaining the

Bachelor's Degree in Arts. The Committee further

found that the experience certificate produced by

the petitioner was not believable. In the result,

the Committee recommended that the appointment of

the petitioner to the post of Junior Accounts

Officer should be cancelled. Accordingly,

respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated

14.09.2015 and cancelled appointment of the

petitioner as Junior Accounts Officer with

immediate effect.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that there was no mention in the

advertisement that the candidate must have

practical experience in accounts and auditing work

in any Government office or business firm or local

authority for a continuous period of five years

after completing the graduation. Therefore,

5 WP-9850.odt

respondent no.3 was not justified in cancelling

appointment of the petitioner on the ground that

he did not gain the requisite experience of five

years after completion of his graduation. He

further submits that the petitioner was

prosecuting his studies for B.Sc. and M.Sc. in a

college at Ashti and simultaneously working with

Dashnam Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,

Parbhani as an Accounts Clerk. The petitioner was

not regularly attending the lectures and

practicals in the college which was at the

distance of 65 k.m. from Parbhani. However,

respondent no.3 wrongly disbelieved genuineness of

the experience certificate produced by the

petitioner and cancelled his appointment. He

submits that the petitioner was holding requisite

experience for a period of five years. His

appointment has been wrongly cancelled by

respondent no.3. He, therefore, prays that the

impugned order dated 14.09.2015 issued by

6 WP-9850.odt

respondent no.3 terminating services of the

petitioner may be quashed and set aside and the

petitioner may be directed to be reinstated.

8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel

for respondent no.3 relying on the contents of the

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent

no.3 and the documents produced on record, submits

that the experience certificate produced by the

petitioner itself is not genuine and believable.

It was not possible for the petitioner to work as

an Accounts Clerk with the above-mentioned Society

at Parbhani and at the same time, attend the

lectures/practicals for prosecuting his studies in

the college at Ashti, which was at a distance of

65 kms. from the office of the Society, where he

was allegedly working. He further submits that the

Circular dated 31.08.1972 issued by General

Administration Department, Government of

Maharashtra, specifically mentions that wherever

7 WP-9850.odt

experience for a specified period has been

mentioned as an essential qualification, the

experience gained after acquiring the degree

qualification prescribed, should alone be counted

towards the specified period and the experience

gained prior to acquiring the basic qualification

should be ignored unless it is expressly provided

in the recruitment rules.

9. The learned Counsel for respondent no.3

further submits that the basic qualification for

the post of Junior Accounts Officer was graduation

in any field plus practical experience in accounts

and auditing work in any Government office or

business firm or local authority for a continuous

period of five years. The said experience ought to

have been gained by the petitioner after

completion of graduation. The petitioner has

completed his graduation on 11.01.2011.

Therefore, his alleged experience from 01.02.2009

8 WP-9850.odt

to 15.09.2014 cannot be said to be the requisite

experience for the post applied for. Moreover, his

experience certificate itself is not believable.

He submits that after extending the petitioner

necessary opportunity of hearing, the Enquiry

Committee headed by respondent no.2 and comprising

of seven members including respondent no.3, found

that the petitioner was not holding the requisite

experience and decided to cancel his appointment.

He supports the impugned order and prays that the

Writ Petition may be dismissed.

10. It is well settled that experience in

respect of any particular field should be an

experience gained by the candidate upon possessing

the basic qualification in that field. The

experience gained by a candidate prior to

acquiring the basic qualification would certainly

be insufficient in its contents and would not

satisfy the requirement of the requisite

experience.

9 WP-9850.odt

11. In the present case, as seen from the

advertisement, for being eligible to apply for the

post of Junior Accounts Officer, the candidate

must possess a Degree of a recognised University

and also practical experience of working in any

Government office, business firm or local

authority for a continuous period of five years.

Preference was to be given to the candidates

holding a Degree in Commerce with accounts and

audit as special subjects, or obtaining First

Class or Second Class in the degree. It was

further mentioned that more preference would be

given to the candidates having experience in

accounts work in any Government office or a

business firm or local authority. From these terms

of the advertisement, it is clear that the

experience of working for a continuous period of

five years with any Government office, business

firm or local authority and possessing graduation

10 WP-9850.odt

from any recognised University were the essential

qualifications.

12. The qualification for appointment to the

post of Junior Accounts Officer by nomination of

candidates, as given in Appendix XI(2)(1)(b)(ii),

is as under :-

"

igpossess a degree of a recognised University and have practical experience in Accounts and Auditing

work in any Government office, or a business firm or a local authority for a continuous period of at least five years, preference being given to those who hold a degree in Commerce

with Accountancy and Audit as special subjects or a 1st or 2nd class degree.

OR Possess a post-graduate degree with Mathematics or Statistics or

Accountancy and Audit as special subjects, preference being given to those with experience in Accounts work in any Government office or a business firm or a local authority."

13. The petitioner has produced the experience

certificate dated 19.09.2014 issued by one Shankar

11 WP-9850.odt

Khushalrao Giri, President, Dashnam Urban Co-

operative Credit Society Ltd., Parbhani wherein, it

is mentioned that the petitioner was working as an

Accounts Clerk in the said society from 01.02.2009

to 15.09.2014. The genuineness of the said

certificate was challenged by one Gajanan Tukaram

Chavan by sending a complaint to respondent no.3 as

well as the Committee headed by respondent no.2.

The Enquiry Committee headed by respondent no.2 and

comprising of seven members including respondent

no.3, conducted thorough enquiry as to the

experience certificate produced by the petitioner.

The statements of the present petitioner,

complainant - Gajanan Tukaram Chavan, President of

the Society namely, Shankar Giri, who had issued

the experience certificate, came to be recorded.

The time table of the College of the petitioner

also was considered. It was found that the time

schedule of the college lectures and practicals was

overlapping with the time during which, the

12 WP-9850.odt

petitioner allegedly was serving with the Society.

Considering all the factual aspects of the matter,

the Enquiry Committee in its meeting dated

31.07.2015 concluded that the experience

certificate produced by the petitioner was not

genuine and believable.

14. The minutes of the meeting of the Enquiry

Committee dated 31.07.2015 are produced on record.

The findings of facts recorded in the said minutes

of the meeting, cannot be gone into by this Court

in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Once it was held by the

Enquiry Committee that the experience certificate

produced by the petitioner was not genuine and

believable, the petitioner cannot be said to have

possessed the requisite qualification and

particularly, in respect of the requisite practical

experience for the post of Junior Accounts Officer.

If that be so, respondent no.3 was fully justified

13 WP-9850.odt

in cancelling appointment of the petitioner to the

post of Junior Accounts Officer.

15. Though there is no specific mention in the

advertisement that the requisite experience for the

post should be gained by the candidate after

obtaining the graduation degree, it is well settled

that such experience is required to be gained by

the candidate after obtaining the graduation

degree. This fact is further strengthened by the

clarification given in the Circular dated

31.08.1972 (Exhibit "N") issued by the General

Administration Department, Government of

Maharashtra. Even otherwise, when the experience

certificate produced by the petitioner has been

held to be not genuine and believable, the

objection raised on behalf of the petitioner, that

there was no specific mention in the advertisement

that the requisite experience should have been

gained by the candidate after obtaining the degree,

looses significance.

14 WP-9850.odt

16. In the above circumstances, we do not find

any reason to interfere with the decision taken by

the Enquiry Committee and the resultant impugned

order dated 14.09.2015 passed by respondent no.3

cancelling the appointment of the petitioner for

the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. The Writ

Petition is devoid of any substance. Hence, the

order :-

(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(ii) Rule is accordingly discharged.

          (iii)    No costs.
   





    [SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]              [S.S. SHINDE, J.]




    kbp