Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4573 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 27 March, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                     Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010241972024




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:3733

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/6254/2024

            AYSHA BEGUM
            D/O AKKAR ALI,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIARA KALABARI (PATHURIA) PO
            RADHAMADHAB HAT, PS MANKACHAR, DIST SOUTH SALMARA
            MANKACHAR, ASSAM 783131



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO
            THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

            2:THE REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE)
             OF THE HONBLE GUAHATI HIGH COURT
             LATASIL UZANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI 01

            3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
             SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
             PO FEKAMARI
             DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
            ASSAM 78313

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M R KHANDAKAR, MR. A ROHMAN,MR. R MAZUMDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, GHC




             Linked Case : WP(C)/6161/2024
                                                                 Page No.# 2/6


       SHIMUL CHANDRA DAS
       S/O- KANESWAR DAS
       R/O- VILL.- KUKURMARA PART-II
       P.O. RADHAMADHABHAT
       P.S. MANKACHAR
       DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
       ASSAM


       VERSUS

       THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ANR
       SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR
       HATSINGIMARI-CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
       DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
       ASSAM

       2:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
       SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR-CUM-ENQUIRY OFFICER
        DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
       ASSAM
        ------------

 For the Petitioner(s)      : Mr. M. R. Khandakar, Advocate
 For the Respondent(s)      : Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate
                            : Mr. A. Baruah, Advocate
                             : Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC


                             BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

 Date of Hearing           : 27.03.2025


 Date of Judgment           : 27.03.2025



                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M. R. Khandakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Page No.# 3/6

the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.6254/2024. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.6161/2024.

2. Both these writ petitions are taken up together taking into account that the issue involved in both the writ petitions pertains to termination of the petitioner of both the writ petitions on account of being over qualified.

3. It is seen from records that on 11.02.2022, an advertisement was issued by the District in Sessions Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar for filling up the various post including the post of peon from eligible candidates. In the said advertisement, it was categorically mentioned that as regards the educational qualification, the candidate should have been minimum Class- VIII standard and those who have passed HSSLC or above shall be ineligible to apply. In addition to that, it is also seen that along with the application form, there is a requirement of submission of the educational qualification certificate. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners in both the writ petitions applied for the post of peon.

4. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6254/2024 was found qualified for appointment to the post of peon in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar amongst the post reserved for women. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6161/2024 was selected for the post of peon amongst the reserved Scheduled Caste category in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara Mankachar.

Page No.# 4/6

5. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners were appointed by the District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar vide two separate orders dated 13.02.2024. On the basis of certain complaints received that both the petitioners were over qualified, notices were issued by the Additional CJM cum Enquiry Officer, South Salmara, Mankachar.

6. In the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.6254/2024, the allegation in the notice dated 29.04.2024 was that the petitioner had cleared Class-XII examination prior to the advertisement dated 11.02.2022. It was also mentioned in the notice that the said petitioner had also appeared in

the 5th semester of the B.A. course as an admit card for the said examination was issued in favour of the petitioner.

7. In respect to the petitioner in WP(C) No.6161/2024, in the notice issued on 29.04.2024, it was alleged that the petitioner was a graduate and as such, the said petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer and depose regarding the allegations against them.

8. Pursuant thereto, after recording the statements and giving opportunity to the petitioner in both the writ petitions, they were terminated vide two separate orders dated 07.09.2024 on the ground of suppressing their actual educational qualifications and getting selected as Grade-IV staff in the Establishment. It is under such circumstances, both the writ petitions have been filed before this Court.

9. Mr. M. R. Khandakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were not given sufficient opportunity and as such, the disciplinary enquiry as well as Page No.# 5/6

the impugned order of termination are required to be interfered with.

10. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.6254/2024 and Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.6161/2024 have submitted that this is the case where the petitioners have suppressed their educational qualifications and have taken the appointment by misleading the authorities and further depriving other eligible candidates. They therefore submitted that this is not only a fit case for dismissal but the petitioners should also be penalized for misleading and suppressing material facts.

11. Taking into account the submissions made by both the parties, this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as to whether the petitioners were over qualified than what was stated in the advertisement dated 11.02.2022. Mr. M. R. Khandakar, the learned counsel with all fairness submitted that the petitioner in WP(C) No.6254/2024 had passed his HSSLC prior to the advertisement dated 11.02.2022. He also fairly submitted that the petitioner in WP(C) No.6161/2024 is a graduate as on the date of the advertisement dated 11.02.2022.

12. Taking into account the above, it is therefore clear that the petitioners in both the petitions were not eligible to participate in the selection proceedings for the post of peon.

13. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Page No.# 6/6

opportunity was not granted, in the opinion of this Court does not hold water taking into account that the petitioners herein have suppressed material facts before the Selection Committee as regards their qualification and have gained employment in violation to the terms of the advertisement.

14. Under such circumstances, the appointment of the petitioners in both the petitions were absolutely illegal and contrary to the advertisement. In that view of the matter, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the disciplinary authority was therefore justified in terminating the services of the petitioners vide the respective orders dated 07.09.2024. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition for which the petition stands dismissed.

15. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the Respondent Authorities however shall not make any recovery from the petitioners in respect to the period prior to 07.09.2024 as the petitioners have rendered service.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant