Shivam Chaturvedi vs Central University Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 591 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Shivam Chaturvedi vs Central University Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2024

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/LPA/394/2021                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

                                                                                   undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.       394 of 2021

         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4705 of 2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be                         Yes
      allowed to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          Yes

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the                          No
      fair copy of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial                         No
      question of law as to the interpretation
      of the Constitution of India or any order
      made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                           SHIVAM CHATURVEDI
                                 Versus
                     CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MITUL SHELAT, ADVOCATE with MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957)
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                          Date :    23/01/2024

                             CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

As learned Single Judge, by his judgement and order dated 25.01.2021, dismissed the Special Civil Application of the appellant-petitioner, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to call in question the decision of learned Single Judge.

2. It was prayed by the petitioner-appellant herein in his petition to direct the respondents to permit him to resume duties as Hindi Officer, pursuant to his selection. It was further prayed to hold that the action on the part of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to resume the duties was illegal and arbitrary.

3. The said prayers were premised on the facts pleaded inter alia that pursuant to the advertisement appeared in "Hindustan Job" dated 03.02.2021, the petitioner applied for the post of Hindi Officer. According to the petitioner, he was fulfilling the qualifications as required in the advertisement. It is stated by the petitioner that he attended the interview and that his testimonials were verified at that juncture.

3.1 The petitioner cleared the interview and came to be selected for the post in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-. It

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

is further the case that the petitioner was issued letter dated 25.02.2012 about his selection to the post. Pursuant to letter dated 12.03.2012, the petitioner approached the University to resume the duties on 09.03.2012, but was not allowed. It was stated that letter dated 12.03.2012 was given to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied on 13.03.2012.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to resume the duties and was asked to produce documents sought for by the administration. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter, he came to his home town Varanasi and arranged to get all the papers and testimonials. It is the case of the petitioner that he produced all the documents on 22.03.2012. Despite that, the petitioner was not permitted to join the duties.

3.4 Contesting the petition and the prayers, the respondent University highlighted the prescription of required qualification and experience as per the advertisement and the Ordinance of the University providing for such advertisement. It was stated that though the petitioner was informed about his selection to the post by letter dated 25.02.2012, before acceptance of join report, it was necessary to ascertain about the original documents. It was stated that when the petitioner reported to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

office of the University as Hindi Officer on 09.03.2012, his original documents were scrutinised and at that juncture, it was found that the information given by the petitioner in Column 14 of the application was false.

3.5 It was stated that the petitioner mentioned that he had 11 years of experience, whereas he had only three years experience as Pravakta and for that also, no Certificate was produced. The advertisement required minimum experience of five years. It was thus the case of the original respondent that the petitioner supplied fraudulent and misleading information and on basis of such misrepresentation, he was selected. When the said falsity was detected, he was not permitted to join the duty.

4. Learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra assailed the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dismissing the petition to submit that the petitioner was entitled to relief inasmuch as he was selected and was called to be appointed also. It was submitted that the testimonials of the petitioner were examined by the authorities before interview and subsequently, it was not open for the respondents to take a stand that wrong information was supplied. It was submitted that having selected the petitioner, the respondents were

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

estopped from denying appointment and refusing the petitioner to join the duties.

4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat with learned advocate Ms. Disha Nanavaty highlighted all the contentions which were raised in the affidavit-in-reply to support the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. He further relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655], in which case the order of appointment was made subject to production of original certificates. Subsequently, on scrutiny of the original certificates, the respondent was found to be short of qualification and was not allowed to join the duties. The action of the employer was held to be proper by the Supreme Court.

5. Now the qualification prescribed the minimum educational qualification and the experience prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Hindi Officer were based on the prescription in the Ordinance No.13 of the University. The Ordinance provided as under, which qualification was reflected in the advertisement,

"Minimum Educational Qualifications and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

Experience: (1) A post Graduate with minimum of 55 % marks from a recognaized University in hindi with English as one of the subjects at Graduation Level. (2) Minimum 5 years of experience in translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa which includes technical/ Scientific literature work/Hindi research work/journalism in central/state Govt./PSU/Reputed Institutions. (3) Good Knowledge of computers applications."

5.1 Although the petitioner was called for interview and came to be selected before his acceptance of joining report by him when university authorities checked the qualifications, they noticed that in column no.14 of the application, the experience was wrongly mentioned. The petitioner mentioned that he had 11 years of experience, but in fact, he possessed only three years of experience, which too was not authenticated by any experience certificate. Minimum five years experience in translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa was necessary as per the statutory prescription. The petitioner admittedly had not acquired the same, and stood short of experience requirement.

5.2 The petitioner misled the University by mentioning that he had 11 years experience. The University could rightly take up the stand that therefore, the details were fraudulently and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

misrepresentatively given by the petitioner. The submission on the part of the petitioner that he was selected, therefore, right had accrued in him was meritless.

5.3 In the letter dated 25.02.2012, whereby the selection of the petitioner was intimated to him, it was unequivocally provided in condition no.4 thus,

"If at any time during your appointment in the University it is found that you had made wrong declaration in your application for the post/character and antecedents verification forms etc., or had submitted wrong documents, your services are liable to be terminated without notice."

5.4 On 12.03.2012, pursuant to the verification of the documents, the Registrar of the University informed the petitioner that he had failed to provide the appointment letter from Nehru Gram Bharti University appointing him as Lecturer. The petitioner had not submitted relieving letter from the said university. It was also pointed out to him that though in his application, he had stated as having worked as Lecturer at Lukhnow University from 2005 to 2007, the experience certificates show that the petitioner worked as visiting faculty only and not as contractual lecturer.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

5.5 About the experience column wrongly filled in, it was stated that he had mentioned about having worked as Lecturer (Counselor) at National PG College, Luknow, from 2004-2007 on contract, however, the experience certificate confirmed the period indicated in the application form. It was thus stated to the petitioner citing the aforesaid clause 4 of the letter dated 25.02.2012 that information furnished by the petitioner in column no.14 of the application format regarding experience was contrary to the documents and there was no fortification to what was stated.

5.6 The petitioner stated about the experience. However with regard to the three years' experience also, he could not produce the certificate. Evidently therefore, the details in the form revealed that the petitioner was short of minimum experience requirement of 5 years.

5.7 In M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), it was a post of Class-I and Class-II Teacher. The minimum essential qualification required in the advertisement was second class Post Graduate Degree, but the respondent with third class Post Graduate Degree came to be appointed by mistake. The Supreme Court held that unless the advertisement clearly stated that the qualification was relaxable, such appointment would amount to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

fraud on public. In Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), however, the respondent had acquired qualification, subsequently therefore, the relief was accordingly moulded.

5.8 It was however observed and held by Supreme Court,

"When an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertise- ment. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice."

(para 6)

6. In the present case, the question of granting any relief to the petitioner did not arise, who misrepresented the experience to claim the appointment. He was rightly not permitted to join the duties upon detecting misrepresented and false fact about his experience.

6.1 The petitioner found to have misrepresented about his experience and found to be not having the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/394/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2024

undefined

requisite minimum experience mentioned in the Ordinance and advertisement, could hardly be given appointment. Refusal to permit him to join duties was justified once the false information was supplied by the appellant-petitioner. Learned Single Judge was entirely justified in refusing the relief and rejecting the petition. The action on part of the authorities can in no way be termed arbitrary.

6.2 For the reasons stated and discussion supplied above, the judgment and order of learned Single Judge could not be said to be booking any error.

7. The present Letters Patent Appeal is meritless. The same is dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI