Allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gramya Vikas U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others v. Raj Kumar Yadav

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022/273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Appeal set aside a Single Judge's order which had safeguarded a Government employee's appointment. The High Court ruled that cancelling the appointment due to a forged or fake CCC certificate was not a case of misconduct requiring trial, but rather a valid cancellation based on misrepresentation. The court held that the Single Judge erred in finding that natural justice was violated w

What did the court decide?

Set aside the judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30627 (S/S) of 2021.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 273 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Gramya Vikas U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

¶4

Respondent :- Raj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Order on C.M. Application No.01 of 2022 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶7

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel representing the appellants- State Authorities and Sri Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent.

¶8

2. The ofÏce has reported a delay of 187 days in filing the special appeal.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that delay in filing the appeal has not appropriately been explained and as such the application seeking condonation of delay ought to be rejected.

¶10

4. We have perused the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and have also heard the objection raised to it by the learned counsel for the respondent and we find that delay has sufÏciently been explained.

¶11

5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.

¶12

Order on Appeal.

¶13

1. This Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been filed by the appellant- State Authorities questioning the judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the Writ Petition No.30627 (S/S) of 2021 has been allowed and the order dated 26.11.2020, whereby the appointment

¶14

of respondent- petitioner was cancelled, has been set aside. Learned Single Judge has also directed that arrears of salary to the respondent- petitioner with effect from 26.11.2020 may be paid, which may however abide by the final decision, which may be taken in the fresh enquiry regarding which the learned Single Judge has granted liberty while passing the order under challenged herein.

¶15

2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant- State authorities that the order under challenge in this appeal which has been passed by learned Single Judge is based on a misconception for the reason that it was not a case of termination of service of the respondent- petitioner either by way of punishment or by any other mode rather; it is a case where the appointment of respondentpetitioner has been cancelled, as on verification it was found that he had relied upon a 'CCC' Certificate which was never issued by the institute concerned, thus, the appointment was procured by him on the basis of a forged and fabricated document.

¶16

3. Per contra, Sri Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal, learned counsel representing the respondent- petitioner has argued that before passing the order dated 26.11.2020, the authority concerned did not provide him appropriate opportunity of hearing and submitting his explanation and accordingly, the order dated 26.11.2020 suffered from vice of non-observance of principles of natural justice and accordingly, learned Single Judge rightly quashed the said order permitting the appellant - State authorities to conduct the fresh enquiry.

¶17

4. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the record available before us of this special appeal.

¶18

5. The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") issued an advertisement in the year 2016 bearing No.03-Exam/2016 for appointment to the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari. The last date of submission of application forms, pursuant to the said advertisement, admittedly,

¶19

was 10.02.2016. The respondent - petitioner treating himself to be eligible submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement, obviously, on or before 10.02.2016. The written examination, as a part of the selection process, was held on 05.06.2016, result whereof was declared on 20.08.2016. Interviews were also conducted between the period 28.03.2018 to 06.06.2018 and thereafter final result of the selection held by the Commission was declared on 18.07.2018.

¶20

6. We may make a mention of the relevant facts, at this juncture itself, which are that before the candidates were called for interview, they were required to furnish certain information to the Commission after downloading a particular Form. The said application is available at pages-38 to 40 of the special appeal, which was submitted by the respondent – petitioner on 05.05.2018. In the said application, the respondent–petitioner indicated that he has CCC Certificate to his credit with 'B' Grade, which was awarded to him in March, 2015. The application of the respondent–petitioner also discloses the Certificate No. as GO1503044040. Thus, the respondent–petitioner immediately before the interview furnished the necessary information indicating in the application that he had acquired the CCC qualification in March, 2015 along with the said application, which is submitted by the respondent–petitioner on 05.05.2018. He also furnished a document which is available at page 45 of the special appeal, which is described as a certificate in respect of Course on Computer Concepts 'CCC' issued by NIELIT. In the said document, roll number of the respondent– petitioner is shown as GO1503044040, which is exactly as shown in the application available at pages-38 to 40, wherein the said digit has been described to be the certificate number. The date of issuance of the document at page 45, which is the alleged CCC certificate relied upon by the respondent – petitioner is also mentioned as March,2015.

¶21

7. It is the aforesaid certificate dated March 2015 which was doubtful.

¶22

8. Pursuant to his selection, the respondent– petitioner was appointed vide order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the District Development OfÏcer, Shravasti and was posted at Development Block Sirsiya. The appointment order dated 10.10.2018 is available at page-36 of the special appeal, whereby the respondent–petitioner was appointed on the post in question, however, the appointment order clearly states that at the time of submission of the charge, they will have to submit originals of their certificates and further that the appointment is provisional. The order of appointment dated 10.10.2018 further states that the respondent–petitioner was appointed on probation for the period of two years.

¶23

9. Accordingly, pursuant to the appointment order dated 10.10.2018, the respondent–petitioner submitted his joining and also produced the original documents including the certificate issued by NIELIT certifying that he had CCC qualification to his credit. The document for verification of his CCC qualification which was submitted by the respondent – petitioner at the time of his joining is the same, which is available at page-45 of the special appeal and which was submitted by him along with the application form submitted by him immediately before the interview, on 05.05.2018. The said certificate shows that the respondent– petitioner had successfully passed the CCC examination in March, 2015 and is shown to have been issued on 13.05.2015. This document was sent for verification to NIELIT by means of the letter dated 24.10.2018. However, the Deputy Director of NIELIT vide his letter dated 27.12.2018 intimated the District Development OfÏcer that the certificate enclosed with the query dated 24.10.2018 was not issued by the said institute and further that the roll number GO1503044040 is not related to Raj Kumar Yadav, who is the respondent–petitioner.

¶24

10. Accordingly, by means of a letter dated 20.11.2020 the District Development OfÏcer, Shravasti issued a notice to the respondent– petitioner clearly mentioning therein that NIELIT vide its letter dated 27.12.2018, had intimated that certificate relating to CCC qualification, as

¶25

relied upon by him, was never issued by the said institute, and further that the roll number mentioned therein is not related to him and accordingly, the CCC certificate presented by the respondent–petitioner appears to be doubtful. By the said show-cause notice, the respondent– petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. Thereafter, again the respondent–petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation by the District Development OfÏcer by means of another letter dated 21.11.2020. By means of yet another letter dated 24.11.2020, the respondent–petitioner was again asked to furnish his explanation/reply, however, the respondent–petitioner submitted a letter on 24.11.2020 to the District Development OfÏcer stating therein that the information sent by the NIELIT vide its letter dated 27.12.2018 was sent to the ofÏce of District Development OfÏcer mistakenly.

¶26

11. Accordingly, the respondent–petitioner prayed that the CCC certificate submitted by him should be verified once again. Thus, pursuant to the notices issued to the respondent–petitioner thrice, that is on 20.11.2020, 21.11.2020 and then again on 24.11.2020, he did not furnish any reply/ explanation; rather he made a prayer for reverification of the CCC certificate furnished by him.

¶27

12. The said certificate was re-verified by the appellant–State authorities and the Block Development OfÏcer Sirsia, Shravasti vide his letter dated 25.11.2020 intimated that the respondent–petitioner did not furnish any material or evidence which can prove the report/letter dated 27.11.2018 given by the institute to be wrong and further that on verification on the website, the roll number GO1503044040, has not been found to be related to the respondent– petitioner.

¶28

13. Considering all the aforesaid facts, the District Development OfÏcer passed the order terminating services of the respondent–petitioner on 26.11.2020. As a matter of fact, what has been done by the order dated 26.11.2020 is that the appointment of the respondent–petitioner has been cancelled. Any cancellation of appointment

¶29

results in termination of services of an employee and accordingly, even if the order dated 26.11.2020 has been termed to be an order of termination of service, the same, in fact, is the order of cancellation of appointment for the reasons indicated therein.

¶30

14 . Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has opined that there are certain allegations against the respondent–petitioner and accordingly, it was the duty of the appointing authority to provide a copy of the letter dated 27.11.2018 to him in order to permit him to rebut the charges levelled against him. Learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that the respondent–petitioner was not permitted to participate in proceedings which culminated in passing of the order dated 26.11.2020. Learned Single Judge has also opined that the reply submitted by the respondent–petitioner to the show-cause notice has also not been taken into consideration and further that the order dated 26.11.2020 is based on the intimation dated 27.11.2018 without requiring the concerned authority to give any evidence to substantiate the same.

¶31

15. When we analyse the aforesaid findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, what we find is that the same not only runs contrary to the records available in this case, but also that findings are based on some misconception, as if the respondent-petitioner's services were terminated on account of certain allegations. As already observed above, it is not a case of termination of service because of misconduct, etc. rather; it was the case where appointment of respondent–petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the CCC certificate relied upon by him was a fabricated and forged document. It is also to be noticed that while issuing the appointment order dated 10.10.2018, the respondent–petitioner was required to furnish the original documents and the appointment was itself provisional which was subject to verification of certain information. The verification regarding issuance of CCC Certificate by the Institution concerned was made by the appointing authority

¶32

by seeking information regarding certificate relied upon by the respondent – petitioner from the institution itself, which has categorically informed the appointing authority that the certificate relied upon by the respondent – petitioner was not issued by the NIELIT and further that the roll number indicated therein has no concern with the respondent–petitioner.

¶33

16. It is also incorrect to infer that before passing the order impugned, the respondent–petitioner was not given opportunity. As a matter of fact, not once but thrice notices were issued by the appointing authority to the respondent–petitioner i.e. on 20.11.2020, 21.11.2020 and again on 24.11.20.20, requiring him to furnish his explanation regarding the certificate relied upon by him. However, the respondent–petitioner instead of submitting any explanation only prayed for re-verification of the documents and thereafter, on re-verification of the documents on the website of the institution concerned, it was found that the said certificate was never issued by the institution and roll number mentioned in the said certificate also had no concern with the respondent– petitioner.

¶34

17. It is also on record that subsequent to the order dated 26.11.2020, the respondent–petitioner furnished another certificate on 21.02.2022, issued by NIELIT certifying that he had been awarded the said certificate having passed the examination of the course concerned in March, 2016.

¶35

18. Since the last date of submission of the application form pursuant to the advertisement in question was 10.02.2016, as such any certificate issued on 13.03.2016, will not make the respondent – petitioner eligible for the reason that it is well settled that the requisite qualification for recruitment/appointment should be obtained by a candidate concerned at least on or before the last date of submission of the application.

¶36

19. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement dated 24.08.2022 passed by this court in Writ-A

¶37

No.13847 of 2021 : Khushaboo Kumari Gupta versus State of U.P. and others , wherein as per the learned counsel for the respondent, it has been held that CCC certificate is not an essential qualification for appointment to the post in question.

¶38

20. If this is the case of the respondent–petitioner that CCC certificate is not an essential qualification, he ought to have laid his claim or challenge before participation in the selection. Having participated in the selection and also having procured appointment on the basis of a CCC certificate, which was never issued by the NIELIT, the respondent–petitioner cannot be permitted to plead that the said qualification is not one of the essential qualifications. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent based on the said judgement, in the case of Khushaboo Kumari Gupta (supra), thus, is of no avail to him.

¶39

21. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 23.12.2021, which is under appeal before us.

¶40

22. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed and the judgement and order dated 23.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30627 (S/S) of 2021, is hereby set aside.

¶41

23. However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶42

Order Date :- 8.12.2022 Rahul

¶43

Digitally signed by RAHUL TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.14 15:20:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gramya Vikas U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others v. Raj Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gramya Vikas U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others v. Raj Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of P.W.D. Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another Vs Rajendra Kumar Sonwani and Another

Dipti Goel (Agarwal) Vs Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal

Suresh Chandra Tiwari Vs Smt. Preeti Pandey

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home (Police) Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs Rinki Yadav

Alka Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Govt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Sadashiv Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others