Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

IQBAL AHMAD versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.I.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Iqbal Ahmad v. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. - WRIT - A No. 21300 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 4540 (15 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21300 of 1990

Iqbal Ahmad.............................................................................Petitioner

Versus

Divisional Manager and others..........................................Respondents

Hon'ble V.M.Sahai, J

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this court  for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.7.1982, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On the basis of the advertisement issued by the respondents dated 22.7.1973,  the petitioner having requisite qualification, had applied for the post of Office Assistant. The petitioner was considered and he was appointed on the said post vide appointment letter dated 1.1.1975. In the moth of July, 1982 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Cashier and he was further promoted to the higher post on 13.11.1988. It appears that on the basis of some complaint a letter dated 29.5.1982 was issued to the petitioner to the effect that he had wrongly disclosed the educational qualification in the application form submitted by the petitioner dated 8.8.1973. The petitioner submitted a reply wherein it has been stated that as the minimum qualification for the post on the basis of the advertisement was Matriculation and according to the aforesaid qualification the petitioner was eligible to be considered for the post, therefor, inspite of the fact that the petitioner was graduate, he had not disclosed this qualification. It appears that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and a charge sheet dated 25.6.1982 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply. On the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and a penalty of reduction to a lower stage by three steps in his time scale under Regulation 39(1)(d)  of Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1960 was imposed. Further punishment awarded to the petitioner was that he was deprived of any special increment for being graduate in view of the regulations mentioned above.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal on 30.9.1982 before respondent no.2. The said appeal was also dismissed by its order dated 4.1.1983. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order as well as the order of dismissal of appeal, has filed the present writ petition.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that according to the advertisement the minimum qualification for consideration for the post for which the petitioner had been selected, was High School having 60% of marks or Intermediate having 55% of marks.  The petitioner has obtained 66% marks in the High School Examination and 71% marks in the Intermediate Examination. In view of the aforesaid advertisement as the petitioner was fully eligible ,  there was no necessity to disclose the fact that the petitioner was graduate also. The advertisement is extracted below:-

"ykbQ bU';ksjsal dkjiksjs'ku vkQ bf.M;k

foHkkxh; dk;kZy;] thou&izdk'k] ch- 20@120] xkSjhxat]

iksLV ckDl la0 56] okjk.klh 1&221001

ukSdjh lEcU/kh lwpuk

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds okjk.klh] eqxyljk;] xksj[kiqj] ckalxako] nsofj;k] iMjkSuk] cLrh] xkthiqj] vktex<+] e�?ukFk Hkatu] cfy;k] fetkZiqj] jkcVZlxat] tkSuiqj rFkk Kkuiqj fLFkr fofHkUu dk;kZy;ksa esa ¼1½dk;kZy;ksa lgk;dksa ¼Dyfjdy vflLVs.V~l½ ,oa ¼2½ vaxzsth VkbfiLVksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq ,d izrh{kk&lwph cukus ds fy,] fuEu fyf[kr vgZrk,a iwjh djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkosnu i= vkefU=r fd;s tkrs gSA

¼2½  nksuksa fjfDr;ksa dh vuqekfur la[;k 50 ¼ipkl½ gS]  ftlesa ls] mi;qDr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lqyHk gksus dh fLFkfr esa] 21 izfr'kr] 5 izfr'kr ,oa 17AA izfr'kr LFkku dze'k% vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa] vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ,oa HkwriwoZ lSU; deZpkfj;ksa rFkk ;q) esa ekjs x;s lSU; deZpkfj;ksa rFkk ;q) esa ekjs x;s lSU; deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa ds fy;s  lqjf{kr gSA

¼3½ U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%

¼i½ dk;kZy; lgk;dksa ¼Dyfjdy vflLVs.V~l½ gsrq%

¼v½ ,l0,l0lh0 ;k eSfVªdqys'ku ijh{kk esa dqy vadksa dk de ls de 60 izfr'kr vad izkIr fd;k gksA

vFkok

    b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk esa dqy vadksa dk de ls de 55            izfr'kr vad izkIr fd;k gks]

vFkok

    Lukrd@LukrdksRrj mikf/k esa dqy vadksa dk de ls de   de 50 izfr'kr vad izkIr fd;k gksA ¼fdUrq dyk vFkok         okf.kT; Lukrd@LukrdksRrj mikf/kokys vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy,]             ftUgksaus xf.kr fo"k; u fy;k gks] dqy vadksa dk ;g            izfr'kr 45 gh gksxk½ rFkk

¼c½ fgUnh Hkk"kk dk Kku vfuok;Z gSA

¼ii½ vaxzsth VkbfiLVksa gsrq%

¼v½ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk,a �?ij 3 ¼i½ esa mfYyf[kr ;ksX;rkvksa ls 5 izfr'kr deA

¼c½ vaxzsth Vkbfiax esa de ls de 40 ¼pkyhl½ 'kCn izfr feuV dh xfrA

rFkk

¼l½ fgUnh Hkk"kk dk Kku vfuok;Z gSA

¼4½ vk;q %

igyh tqykbZ 1973 dks de ls de 18 o"kZ ,oa vf/kd ls vf/kd            25 o"kZA

¼5½ f'kfFkyrk;sa%

fdUgha fuf'pr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fuEufyf[kr NwV nh tk;sxh%&

¼i½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuq0 tutkfr& vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa] 5 o"kZ ,oa U;wure                                           'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds     izfr'kr vadksa esa 5    

                                        izfr"krA

¼ii½ izekf.kr foLFkkfir tks iwoZ& vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 5 o"kZ

ikfdLrku ls fnukad 1 tuojh]

1964 vFkok mlds ckn Hkkjr

vk;s gksA

¼iii½ HkwriwoZ lSU; deZpkfj;ksa gsrq& vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa] vkEMZ QkslZ esa fcrk;s x;s lsok dky ,oa rhu o"kZ dh  vkSj  NwV nh

                                        tk ldrh gSA

¼6½ osru ,oa HkRrs%

U;wure osrueku esa] vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ifjoh{kk dky ¼izksos'ku ihfj;M½ esa dqy ekfld osru dk;kZy; lgk;dksa dks :i;k 332½80 rFkk     vaxzth VkbfiLVksa dks :i;k 357½80 izkIr gksxk] ftlesa    le;≤ ij feyus okys lHkh HkRrs 'kkfey gksaxsA  blds     vfrfjDr fu;qDr LFkku ds vuqlkj fu;eksa ds v/khu :0 10½ izfr      ekg uxj izfriwjd HkRrk fn;k tk;sxkA

¼7½ fooj.k i=koyh lfgr vkosnu i=] foHkkxh; dk;kZy; ds mijksDr     irs ij] izfr vkosnu i= nks :i;s ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa@tu       tkfr;ksa ds fy, 50 iSls ek=½ tks fd okil ugaha fd;k tk;sxk]     nsdj 'kfuokj ds vfrfjDr dk;kZy; ds vU; fnuksa esa izkr% 10-30     cts ls lk;a 3 cts rd rFkk 'kfuokj dks izkr% 10-30 cts ls     nksigj 12-30 cts rd izkIr fd;s tk ldrs gSaA  iSlk udn vFkok   js[kkafdr Hkkjrh; iksLVy vkMZj tks �?Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe�? dks okjk.klh esa ns; gks fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA  euhvkMZj Lohdk;Z ugha gksaxsA  iksLVy vkMZj ds lkFk viuk irk fy[kk gqvk 9�?X4�? lkbt dk 35 iSls dk Mkd fVdV yxk gqvk fyQkQk Hkstuk   vfuok;Z gSA ftyk lsok;kstu dk;kZy;ksa ¼okjk.klh] eqxyljk;] xksj[kiqj] nsofj;k] cLrh] cfy;k] xkthiqj] vktex<+] fetkZiqj ,oa tkSuiqj½ esa iathd`r vH;FkhZ lEcfU/kr ftyk lsok;kstu dk;kZy; ls vkosnui= rFkk vko';d fooj.k fu%'kqYd izkIr dj ldrs gS] ysfdu mUgsa vius vkosnui= dsoy lEcfU/kr lsok;kstu dk;kZy; ds ek/;e ls gh Hkstus gksaxsA

nksuksa inksa ds fy;s vkosnu djus ds bPNqd vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vyx&vyx vkosnu i= Hkjus gksaxsA

¼8½ vkosnu i= tkjh djus dh vfUre frfFk 3 vxLr] 1973 rFkk lHkh izdkj ls iw.kZ vkosnu i=ksa ds tek djus dh vfUre frfFk 14   vxLr] 1973 ¼lk;a 4 cts½ rd gksxhA

¼9½ ,l0,l0lh0 b.VjehfM,V vFkok Lukrdh;@LukrdksRrjh;     ijh{kkvksa esa izkIr vadksa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkfed p;u ds vuUrj] pqus x;s vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dk;kZy; lgk;d in gsrq vaxzsth ,oa vadxf.kr esa rFkk VkbfiLV in gsrq vaxzsth ,oa vaxzsth Vad.k ¼Vkbfiax½ dh   O;okgkfjd ijh{kk nsuh gksxhA  lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq   mifLFkr gksuk gksxkA  izrh{kk lwph esa j[kus gsrq vH;fFkZ;ksa dk   vfUre p;u ijh{kkvksa ,oa lk{kkRdkj ij vk/kkfjr gksxkA

& fxjh'k pUnz xxZ] foHkkxh; izcU/kd

                                                o 5444@30�?

It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that the petitioner had concealed anything. He has placed reliance on paragraph 2 of the judgment of the apex court Munna Roy v. Union of India & others reported in 2000(2) LBESR 867 (SC). Relevant portion of paragraph 2 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-

"2. ............. The list of successful candidates included her name but the ground for cancellation  of the entire list without even informing the appellant was that though the minimum qualification required was a matriculate she was a graduate and thus dubious method has been adopted for being selected. We really fail to understand that if a candidate possesses a qualification and the advertisement itself had prescribed the same then how can the authority come to a conclusion that selection has been made by adopting a dubious method. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the concerned authorities quashing the selection panel and direct that the order of the Tribunal be implemented."

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner submits, that the punishment which has been awarded to him, is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner, in paragraph 4 of his reply, has admitted this fact. Paragraph 4 of the reply of the petitioner is extracted below:-

" 4. That since the rules for recruitment prevailing at that time was to allow the candidates of higher percentage of marks with lower qualification in comparison to the candidates with lower percentage of marks in higher qualification because the percentage of marks contained by me was lesser and might have not given me a chance to appear for test and interview."

In support of the aforesaid submissions the respondents submitted that it will amount to concealment of his qualification by the petitioner in view of the various judgments of the apex court and as such the action taken against the petitioner is valid. He has placed reliance on paragraph 8 of A.P.Public Service Commission v. Koneti Vekatswarulu and others AIR 2005 SC 4292.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the advertisement, it is clear that the educational qualification for the purposes of consideration was Intermediate and the petitioner was eligible for the same. If the petitioner was graduate at that time and he had not disclosed this fact in the application form submitted by him, it does not amount to concealment because in the advertisement or the form submitted by the petitioner, it has not been provided that if the petitioner is having higher educational qualification than the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement, he had to disclose this fact. If this could have been position then it can be said that it amounts to concealment. In absence of any clause in the advertisement requiring a candidate to disclose the higher educational qualification, it cannot be held that the petitioner was guilty of concealment of fact. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be upheld.

In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17.7.1982 passed by respondent no.1, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, is quashed with all consequential benefits of service to the petitioner.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

15.3.2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.