Madras High Court
G.Sivakumar vs The Divisional Engineer (C&M) on 5 August, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
G.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Divisional Engineer (C&M),
Office of the Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Sivagangai and District.
2.A.Mohandoss
3.Muthumurugan
4.G.Pandithurai
5.S.Ramasamy
6.S.Murugesan
7.A.Ravichandran
8.A.Saravanan
9.M.Gopalakrishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to
the impugned seniority lists, dated 08.09.2008 and 09.01.2012 in Ku.No.
2242/2011-3/Aa4, issued by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
the first respondent to prepare a fresh seniority list of Road Workers for
promotion to the post of Road Inspector in Sivagangai District based on the
educational qualification as recorded in the Service Register of the Road Workers
while they are joined in service and place the petitioner's candidature in an
appropriate place and give promotion to the petitioner's as Road Inspector.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy
For R-1 : Mr.M.Linga Durai
Government Advocate
For R2, to R5, R7 to R9 : No Appearance
For R6 :Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
*****
ORDER
The above Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned seniority lists, dated
08.09.2008 and 09.01.2012, issued by the first respondent and to direct the first
respondent to prepare a fresh seniority list of Road Workers for promotion to the
post of Road Inspector in Sivagangai District based on the educational
qualification as recorded in the Service Register of the Road Workers while they
joined service and place the petitioner's candidature in an appropriate place and
give promotion to the petitioner as Road Inspector.
2.Heard Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, learned Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
petitioner, Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned Government Advocate for the first
respondent and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent.
3.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are
as follows:
3.1.The Writ Petitioner joined duty as a Road Worker in the year 1997 in
the Highways Department, which is under the control of the first respondent. At
the time of joining service, the petitioner has passed 10th standard, which was also
recorded in the Service Register of the petitioner. The qualification prescribed for
Road Worker is only pass in 5th standard and the age limit is 35 years and the
candidates must have good physic. It is the case of the petitioner that the
respondents 2 to 9 were also originally posted as Road Worker under the control
of the first respondent. It is further stated that the respondents 2 to 9, while
joining the service, suppressed that they have acquired higher qualification than
10th standard. Stating that the respondents 2 to 9 have deliberately suppressed
their educational qualification with ulterior motive and object, the petitioner
states that the persons, who has given false particulars regarding their educational
qualification, are not entitled to be considered for the next promotion, because of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
the gravity of misconduct committed by them. It is further stated that the first
respondent prepared a seniority list by considering the educational qualification
of 10th standard and promoted the respondents 2 to 9 as Road Inspector without
considering the ineligibility of respondents 2 to 9, who suppressed their
educational qualification with ulterior motive. Hence, the above Writ Petition has
been filed to quash the impugned seniority list.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the false declaration
given by the employees while entering into the service amounts to misconduct, as
per Conduct Rules and that therefore, inclusion of the names of respondents 2 to
9 should be deleted. As a matter of fact, it is seen that the respondents 2 to 9 have
passed 10th standard, when they entered into service. The first respondent
prepared the impugned seniority lists, dated 08.09.2008 and 09.01.2012,
including the names of respondents 2 to 9. The petitioner has questioned the
inclusion of names of respondents 2 to 9 in the seniority list prepared by the first
respondent to the post of Road Inspector. Though the petitioner and respondents
2 to 9 are qualified, because of the suppression, where, the respondents 2 to 9
admitted that they have not disclosed their educational qualification at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
recruitment to the post of Road Worker, the contention of the the respondents 2 to
9 cannot be accepted.
5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs Government of NCT
of Delhi and others, reported in 2010 11 SCC 702, wherein, the Honourable
Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the case of a Constable, whose date of
birth was wrongly given and try to delete the date of birth subsequently. It is held
that a candidate, who furnished false particulars and incomplete information in
his application, will be debarred from securing employment.
6.The said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court was subsequently
followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Tamil Nadu Nedunchalai
Thurai Salaipaniyalar Sangam vs A.Issac Ponraj and others, in W.P.Nos.8065
and 19402 of 2009, dated 18.10.2011 and justified the reversion of petitioners
them into lower post. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment is extracted as follows:
“3.It is seen from the records that in the Highways Department,
about 10000 Gang Mazdoors were appointed in the year 1997 for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
supervising and maintaining various roads at the rate of 2 Gang Mazdoors
per 8 Km. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Gang
Mazdoor was a pass in 5th standard. After recruitment, certificates
regarding their educational qualifications which were submitted by them
were sent to the concerned educational officers for verification. The
Educational Officers had subsequently reported that some of the
certificates produced by certain employees were not genuine and they were
false records. Hence, disciplinary action was initiated against those Gang
Mazdoors. Final orders were issued by the disciplinary authority by
removing them from service. Aggrieved by the order of removal, those
affected Gang Mazdoors had filed various original applications before the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated
27.3.2002 had set aside the removal and ordered to impose a punishment
of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect on those
applicants. The next avenue of promotion for Gang Mazdoors is Road
Inspectors Grade II, for which post, a pass in SSLC has been prescribed as
minimum qualification. At the time of preparation of panel for the post of
Road Inspector Grade II, once again certain Gang Mazdoors had
produced certificates stating that they had passed SSLC. It was totally in
conflict with their earlier stand. They had produced certificates at the time
of their initial recruitment, wherein they had stated that they had passed
only 5th standard. Thus, the Gang Mazdoors had suppressed the facts
about their pass in the SSLC even at the time of their initial recruitment.”
7.A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent confirming the
position that all the respondents 2 to 9 have acquired higher qualification than
required and that they have not disclosed their educational qualification in the
application.
8.Mr.Sadiq Raja, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
6th respondent though has not given particulars about his educational
qualification, his case cannot be treated as one, where, the candidates suppressed
particulars about their educational qualification. Since the 6th respondent has not
given any false information, it is further stated by the learned Counsel for the 6 th
respondent that his promotion cannot be derailed, merely because the educational
qualification of 6th respondent is suppressed.
9.The respondents 2 to 9 got the job by giving a false declaration as to their
educational qualification. Though the respondents 2 to 9 have passed 10th
standard and have more educational qualification than required, it cannot be
disputed that the respondents 2 to 9 have given false information about their
educational qualification.
10.It is seen from the records that the 6th respondent has not given any
information about his educational qualification. It is exactly a case of
suppression. The others respondents has given false declaration, as fail in 10 th
standard. The 6th respondent made others to believe that his educational
qualification is immaterial. The learned Counsel for the 6th respondent submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
that no motive can be attributed to any of the candidates by giving false
declaration, as to their educational qualification and none of the respondents 2 to
9 would gain preference. Though this argument is appealing, this Court unable to
appreciate the said argument, in view of the settled principles of law, as approved
by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court in the judgments relied upon by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
11.Having regard to the stated circumstances, this Writ Petition is partly
allowed. The first respondent is directed to frame charges against the respondents
2 to 9 for suppression of educational qualification in their application at the time
of joining. While proceeding against the respondents 2 to 9, as per the direction
of this Court, the first respondent shall also consider the seniority of the petitioner
for the purpose of promotion to the post of Road Inspector by placing the
petitioner in the suitable place and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
12.This Writ Petition is partly allowed with the above directions. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
cmr
To
The Divisional Engineer (C&M),
Office of the Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Sivagangai and District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.641 of 2013
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
