Disposed

Hareesh Mukund v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2024WP(C)/39442/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contract Technical Assistant in a gram panchayat was suspended on allegations that his BCA degree from Periyar University was not genuine or UGC-recognised, despite prior verification by the Panchayat and University. The High Court directed the Director of Panchayats to conduct an enquiry into the degree's genuineness and the prescribed qualifications within two months and to reinstate him if fo

What the court decided

AI extract

Hareesh Mukund Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HAREESH MUKUND

¶8

AGED 32 YEARS, HAREESH BHAVAN, KALANJOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689694

¶9

BY ADVS. VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN MIRAL K.JOY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶12

2 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM., PIN - 695033

¶13

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA., PIN - 689645

¶14

4 KALANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT KALANJOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 689694

¶15

5 THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE KALANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALANJOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.,

¶16

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶17

-2-

¶18

PIN - 689694

¶19

6 VIGILANCE REPRESENTED BY THE DYSP, DOCTORS LN, NEAR GOVT.HOSPITAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689645

¶20

*ADDL.R7 ARUN P.S., S/O.SREEDHARAN, MEMBER WARD-15, KALANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT RUDRA VEENA, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA

¶21

*ADDL.R8 SOMAN K.,

¶22

S/O.KUNJIRAMAN MEMBER WARD NO:12, KALANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT SANKARA NIVAS, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689694

¶23

ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R7 & ADDL.R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 IN IA 1/2024.

¶24

BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL ASWIN V. NAIR P.S.PREETHA PRAVEENA T.

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

GP SMT ANIMA.M

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶29

-3-

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

(Dated this the 27^th day of June 2024)

¶32

The petitioner is working as a Technical Assistant in the 4^th

¶33

respondent, Panchayat. He was given an appointment on a contract basis for a period of one year on 25.09.2012. After the expiry, it was subsequently extended on a yearly basis. The contract was last renewed on 01.04.2020 and was extended till 31.03.2021. Thereafter, he is continuing on the strength of Government Orders. For terminating a Technical Assistant on the expiry of the period of a contract, a panel comprising of the Deputy Director of Panchayat, the District Officer of Information Kerala Mission and the Panchayat Secretary must prepare a performance appraisal report of the employee, and only based on the said report, he can be terminated.

¶34

On 13.11.2020, one Mr Pradeep filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent, stating that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualifications to get an appointment to the post of Technical

¶35

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶36

-4-

¶37

Assistant. The petitioner was called for a hearing by the Performance

¶38

Audit Supervisor and Senior Superintendent, and being satisfied with the qualifications possessed by the petitioner, a letter was issued to the 3^rd respondent by the Performance Audit Supervisor and Senior Superintendent. On 27.01.2021, the Panchayat Assistant Director issued a letter to the 4^th respondent stating that an enquiry and hearing on the complaint made by Mr.Pradeep would be conducted on 30.01.2021. The 4^th respondent also sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding his educational qualifications, and the petitioner submitted a detailed letter. He also submitted a declaration dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Saga Institute of Management Studies, Malappuram, certifying that the petitioner is a bonafide student of the Institute under Periyar University.

¶39

Thereafter, on 22.02.2021, the 3^rd respondent again issued a letter to the 4^th respondent based on a new complaint from the said Pradeep, which was regarding the genuineness of the educational qualifications possessed by the petitioner and that should be verified.

¶40

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶41

-5-

¶42

The 4^th respondent, after verifying the petitioner's documents, issued

¶43

a reply to the 3^rd respondent, stating that the Panchayat is satisfied with the qualifications possessed by the petitioner. A letter was also issued to the Registrar, Periyar University, by the 4^th respondent, requesting the certificate of genuineness of the petitioner. The Registrar verified the Provisional Certificate and the Decree Certificate

¶44

as per the record and sent a letter stating that the certificates were verified and found to be true and correct. Again, on 24.08.2021, the 3^rd respondent issued a letter to the 4^th respondent asking to ascertain whether the petitioner possesses the qualifications mandated to get an appointment for the post of Technical Assistant and whether the Kerala University or the Kerala Public Service Commission approves the BCA degree possessed by the petitioner. The 4^th respondent replied that the petitioner's appointment is legally sustainable. On 02.12.2022, the petitioner received Ext.P16 letter dated 30.11.2022, suspending him from the 4^th respondent Panchayat with effect from 30.11.2022. He was suspended under a direction from the 2^nd

¶45

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶46

-6-

¶47

respondent to the 3^rd respondent as Ext.P17. Therefore, he

¶48

approached this Court to quash Exts.P16 and P17 and for a direction to the 4^th respondent not to terminate the petitioner without conducting the performance appraisal.

¶49

A counter affidavit is filed by the 4^th respondent stating that the petitioner was appointed on 25.09.2012 as a Technical Assistant in the Panchayat on a contract basis for one year and was extended yearly. It is true that one Mr.Pradeep submitted a complaint before the 3^rd respondent, alleging that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications to get an appointment to the post of Technical Assistant. Based on the complaint, the petitioner was called for a hearing by the Performance Audit Supervisor and Senior Superintendent, and it was found that the petitioner had sufficient qualifications. Ext.P16 letter dated 30.11.2022 was issued restraining the petitioner from further continuing in the post of Technical Assistant based on the directions given by the 3^rd respondent.

¶50

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶51

-7-

¶52

I.A No.1/2024 is filed by two ward members of the

¶53

Panchayat to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents 7 and 8, which was allowed by this Court as per order dated 03.06.2024. They were impleaded as additional respondents 7 and 8.

¶54

The additional respondents 7 and 8 filed I.A No.2/2024 to accept Ext.R7(a) as an additional document. This is a First Information Report (No.VC-02/2024/PTA) of the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta Unit Police Station, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) and 120B of the IPC, which was registered against the petitioner and the former secretary of the Panchayat.

¶55

The petitioner has filed I.A Nos.5 of 2024 and 6 of 2024 to accept the additional documents as Exts.P19 and P20. Ext.P19 is

¶56

the minutes of the Panchayat dated 31.01.2024 produced to show that, as per decision No.13, the petitioner’s service has been extended for one year from 18.01.2024. Ext.P20 is the letter issued by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent regarding the inability to

¶57

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶58

-8-

¶59

find the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner for

¶60

getting appointment as Technical Assistant in the 4^th respondent Panchayat.

¶61

Heard Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran, the counsel for the

¶62

petitioner, Smt.Anima M., the Government Pleader as well as Sri.Mohanlal the counsel for the additional respondents 7 and 8.

¶63

Based on a complaint of one Pradeep, the petitioner was

¶64

suspended as per Ext.P16 from 30.11.2022 onwards. Ext.P2 is the

¶65

order by which the minimum qualification required to appoint a

¶66

person to the post of Technical Assistant is prescribed. The minimum qualifications prescribed are as follows:

¶67

Three-year Diploma in Computer Engineering/Computer Hardware Maintenance/ Information Technology by the Department of Technical Education/ IHRD/Government of Kerala

¶68

¶69

Full-time PGDCA/PDSE with not less than 3 semesters from any University/Technical Education Controller/IHRD/LBS Center for Science and Technology after graduation.

¶70

¶71

Bachelor of Computer Applications (B.C.A.)

¶72

¶73

A/B level certificate from DOEACC, Government of India or

¶74

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶75

-9-

¶76

B.Tech/B.Sc Computer Science

¶77

¶78

Graduation in Electronic Data Processing and Computer Applications.

¶79

10. According to the petitioner, he obtained a Bachelor of Computer

¶80

Application (BCA) in First Class degree from the Periyar University, Tamil Nadu, produced as Ext.P12. When the complaint was filed, the Performance Audit Supervisor and Senior Superintendent called the petitioner, verified the certificates, and was satisfied that the petitioner had the minimum qualification which was informed through Ext.P3 to the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, by Ext.P8, the 3^rd respondent again informed the 4^th respondent to verify the certificates of the petitioner and report back within one month, which was replied through Ext.P10, stating that the petitioner is a degree holder in BCA at the time of appointment and therefore, he is fully qualified. The issue did not stop there; even after issuance of Ext.P10, another letter was issued by the 3^rd respondent to the 4^th respondent on 24.08.2021 to verify whether the Kerala University or

¶81

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶82

-10-

¶83

the Kerala Public Service Commission approves the degree obtained

¶84

by the petitioner. The 4^th respondent replied through Ext.P14, stating that the University verified the certificates obtained by the petitioner, and the certificate of genuineness was also obtained. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is in order. Based on the said letter, the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext.P15 to the 2^nd respondent, informing that the petitioner has the qualification required for the appointment as Technical Assistant, as the same has been verified and found to be genuine by the Secretary of the 4^th respondent. It is after that that the petitioner has been suspended as per Ext.P16 based on Ext.P17 letter issued by the 2^nd respondent to the 3^rd respondent.

¶85

The issue that prompted the 4^th respondent to suspend the petitioner is with respect to the qualification obtained by the petitioner from Periyar University and the genuineness of the same. Though the 4^th respondent has verified the same with the University and a certificate of genuineness has already been obtained, and replied to the 3^rd respondent that the certificates are genuine, the

¶86

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶87

-11-

¶88

petitioner has been kept out of service based on Ext.P17 letter issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶89

It is interesting to note that the petitioner was appointed

¶90

as a Technical Assistant in 2012. Until 2020, there was no complaint against the petitioner regarding either the qualifications obtained or the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner. Additional respondents 7 and 8 contest the case against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has obtained a job by producing documents that are not genuine.

¶91

On 31.01.2024 when the Panchayat convened a meeting, a

¶92

unanimous decision was taken as decision no.13 to extend the petitioner's period of service from 18.01.2024 for a period of one year. The additional respondents, 7 and 8, are also members of the Panchayat who participated in the meeting. They have not raised any objection regarding the genuineness of certificates or qualifications obtained by the petitioner.

¶93

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶94

-12-

¶95

A perusal of the Ext.P20 letter sent by the 3^rd respondent

¶96

to the 2^nd respondent would show that a report was obtained from the Secretary of the 4^th respondent regarding the minimum qualifications obtained by the petitioner as well as the genuineness of the certificates of the petitioner obtained from Periyar University and the 4^th respondent was convinced that the certificates were genuine

¶97

which was reported back to the 2^nd respondent after suspending the petitioner. So, an overall evaluation of the case would show that the petitioner is still under suspension on the allegation that he does not

¶98

have the requisite minimum qualifications to hold the post of Technical Assistant, and the degree certificate he obtained from Periyar University is not genuine.

¶99

The counsel for additional respondents 7 and 8 also contends that the UGC does not recognize Periyar University and that, therefore, the degree obtained from the University cannot be

¶100

taken as a minimum qualification as per Ext.P2.

¶101

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶102

-13-

¶103

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P1 order

¶104

requires only a degree in Bachelor of Computer Applications, and it does not prescribe that it should be one approved by the UGC or

¶105

recognized by the Universities in Kerala. Moreover, it was recognized by the UGC.

¶106

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

¶107

the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding the qualifications of the petitioner obtained from the Periyar University either by obtaining a report or a certificate of genuineness from the University and also taking into consideration the qualifications required as per Ext.P2. The two allegations raised against the petitioner are that the certificates he produced are not genuine and secondly, the University is not recognized by the UGC. The 2^nd respondent, while conducting the enquiry, shall take into consideration these two aspects and make a final decision regarding the degree obtained by the petitioner from Periyar University. If the 2^nd respondent is of the opinion that the

¶108

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶109

-14-

¶110

petitioner is qualified as per Ext.P2 and the certificate produced is a

¶111

genuine one, further orders shall be issued directing the 4^th respondent to reinstate him back to service immediately. This exercise

¶112

shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of

¶113

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶114

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶119

-15-

¶120

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39442/2022

¶121

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶122

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: A3-4029/2012 DATED 25.09.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. 1772/2012/LSGD DATED 27.06.2012 FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE 978 GRAMA PANCHAYATHS IN KERALA
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2020 ISSUED BY PERFORMANCE AUDIT SUPERVISOR AND SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2021 BY THE PANCHAYATH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR AN INQUIRY AND HEARING AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH WILL BE CONDUCTED ON 30.01.2021
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY MR. PRADEEP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER VIA RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2021 NARRATING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 11.02.2021 ISSUED FROM SAGA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, MALAPPURAM CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER IS A BONAFIDING STUDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BASED ON A NEW COMPLAINT FROM THE PART OF MR. PRADEEP
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY MR. PRADEEP AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 05.02.2021 OBTAINED VIA RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS

¶123

WP(C) NO. 39442 OF 2022

¶124

-16-

¶125

Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE REGISTRAR, PERIYAR UNIVERSITY DATED 16.02.2021.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, PERIYAR UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2021 ALONG WITH CERTIFICATES.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.11.2022.
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18	TRUE COPY OF THE INDIA RANKINGS ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL RANKING FRAMEWORK, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Exhibit P19	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF KALANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 31-01-2024 OBTAINED FROM THE LSG KERALA WEBSITE.
Exhibit P20	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶126

EXHIBITS

¶127

Exhibit R7(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. VC -02/2024/PTA DATED 15/02/2024 REGISTERED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PATHANAMTHITTA

Hareesh Mukund v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hareesh Mukund v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udayakumar .C, Vs the Chairman & Managing Director.

K. Kalikkutty Vs State of Kerala

Shamsu M.K Vs P.G.Vinodkumar

V.Muraleedharan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

K.M.Cherian Vs Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.I-112

Akhil Dev Vs State of Kerala