Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 130 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Meena Kumari

2007-01-17

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner i.e. the Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2004 passed in O.A. No. 528 of 2004 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as the CAT). The challenge thrown by the petitioner to the impugned order of the CAT is based on the fact that the private respondent, Meena Kumari, did not have the requisite qualification to be appointed as a Teacher on the post of P.G.T. (Home Science), but despite the accepted position, the CAT has directed them to issue a letter of appointment in her favour within the specified time indicated in the order. 3. The Railway Recruitment Board through its Chairman, Gorakhpur invited applications for appointment of qualified candidates for the post of P.G.T. Teachers for the Railway Schools operating under them. The recruitments were to be effected on various post like Home Science, English, Maths, Sanskrit etc. In this regard advertisements were issued as per employment notice dated 29.3.2003 in Employment News, Rojgar Samachar and various local daily newspapers. 4. In the advertisement dated 29.3.2003 of the "Employment News", in column 23, relating to RG.T (Home Science), the minimum qualification was indicated as B.Sc. in Home Science or B.A. in Home Economics or B.A. in Domestic Science, whereas in all other advertisements the qualification laid down for RG.T.(Home Science) was B.Sc. trained in Home Science or B.A. trained in Home Economics or B.A. trained in Domestic Science. When the authorities discovered the discrepancy in the advertisement contained in "Employment News" dated 29.3.2003 vis-a-vis other advertisements in Hindi, they immediately issued a corrigendum on 31.3.2003. This corrigendum was not only published in the "Employment News but many other newspapers national and regional Hindi and English totalling 37 in number. In other words at the shortest possible time i.e. within two days widest publicity with regard to the error contained in Employment News with regard to minimum qualification for appointment on the post of P.G.T. (Home Science) was given by the petitioner herein. 5. The private respondent i.e. Meena Kumari was an applicant to the post of P.G.T. (Home Science) in terms of the advertisement issued by the petitioner. 5. The private respondent i.e. Meena Kumari was an applicant to the post of P.G.T. (Home Science) in terms of the advertisement issued by the petitioner. She sat for the examination as well as faced the Interview Board but after verification of her original testimonials no appointment letter was issued to her despite she having qualified in the written examination as well as in the interview. Aggrieved by the said denial of appointment the private respondent moved the CAT Bench, Patna by filing O.A. No. 528 of 2004. In the O.A. application the basic contention raised by the private respondent is that in terms of the "Employment News" advertisement dated 29.3.2003 she being a graduate in Home Science applied for the post of P.G.T. (Home Science). She submitted her application before 29.4.2003 within the time fixed for suchv application, thereafter she was issued an admit card to sit for the examination, which she duly did, subsequently, she was invited to appear in the interview on 30.2.2004, her relevant testimonials were verified and were found to be in order but no appointment letter despite having qualified was issued to her forcing her to approach the CAT. 6. A written statement was filed by the present petitioner before CAT wherein they clarified that the petitioner could not be appointed to the said post despite having qualified because she did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as P.G.T. (Home Science) because she was a plain graduate without the requisite training, which was required as a requisite qualification. The present petitioner categorically stated that within two days of the discrepancy/shortfall having been found in the advertisement contained in "Employment News", corrigendums were issued not only in the "Employment News", but 37 other Hindi and English papers across the country. They also stated that "Rojgar Samachar" and other newspapers clearly carried out the stipulation of training in addition to the indicated degree to be the pre-requisite for the appointment as a P.G.T (Home Science) Teacher. The private respondent intentionally or negligently ignored to verify the basic requi- sites indicated in various advertisement and the mere fact that she was allowed to sit for examination and face the interview will not entitle her for appointment, as claimed by her. Since the basic qualifications indicated in the advertisement had to be met and the same could not be diluted or watered down for the private respondent. Since the basic qualifications indicated in the advertisement had to be met and the same could not be diluted or watered down for the private respondent. Moreso when the corrigendum was issued by them within two days of the infirmity having been found in just one advertisement i.e. "the Employment News" laying down the minimum qualification as trained graduate, no question for appointment arose on the qualification she possessed. 7. The private respondents contention before the CAT was that she having been allowed to appear for the written examination and the interview, she had a right to be appointed, as the appointing authorities were hit by the principles of estoppel. They having permitted her to sit for the examination as well as for the interview now they cannot go back on their promise and not allow her to be appointed to the said post. She further contended that the corrigendum which was issued and given publicity was not wide enough for her to take notice and, there-fore, even if the corrigendum was issued in some newspapers that could not be held out against her and it will not come in the way of her claim for appointment. She relied on a couple of decisions of various Courts to press her case before the CAT. 8. The CAT after going through the matter held in favour of the private respondent and directed the present petitioner to issue the letter of appointment in her favour within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. It is this order of the CAT, which is under challenge before the High Court in the present writ application. 9. The contention of the present petitioner is not different from the one taken before the CAT. They reiterate their position that they having issued the neces- sary corrigendum and given the widest publicity, the proof of which has been brought on record in the present writ application also, within two days of the discovery of the said error they cannot be held liable or responsible in any manner and just because the private respondent chose to ignore the above corrected position with regard to the minimum qualification, the petitioner cannot be held liable in any manner whatsoever. The question of appointment of the private respondent would only arise provided she fulfilled the qualifications indicated in the advertisements and not merely on the fact that she sat for the examination and also faced the interview in which she was successful. The training alongwith graduation degree indicated in the advertisement was not only necessary for Home Science but for other posts also and, therefore, the same cannot be given a go-bye to in the case of the private respondent after completion of the various formalities. It was at the very first stage of the verification of the testimonials that the authorities realised that the private respondent did not have the requisite certificate for training and, therefore, they chose not to offer her the appointment to the post of P.G.T. (Home Science). They further stated that the ques- tion of principle of estoppel does not come into play because the advertisement was published inviting applications from all those, who had the requisite minimum qualification laid down in the advertisement to appear for the written examination as well as the interview and the mere fact that a person choose or was permitted to sit for the examination as well as to face the interview, despite the minimum qualification not being in her favour, the authorities cannot be bound to appoint her despite not being qualified enough to hold the post in question. 10. The counsel for the private respondent reiterated her position that it was a fit case in which principle of estoppel would apply and at this belatec stage when she had already qualified the written test as well as the interview the authorities could not be permitted to resile and not offer her appointment. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Senior Advocate relied on a few decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this High Court to buttress his position or the argument. He relied on (2001)8 SCC 546 in case of Tariq Islam V/s. Aligarh Muslim University, AIR 1990 SC 1075 in case of Sanatan Qauda V/s. Berhampur University, AIR 1976 SC 376 in case of Shri Krishan V/s. Kurukshetra University, and 1982 0 BBCJ 302 in case of Amresh Kumar V/s. Principal, Medical College. 11. He relied on (2001)8 SCC 546 in case of Tariq Islam V/s. Aligarh Muslim University, AIR 1990 SC 1075 in case of Sanatan Qauda V/s. Berhampur University, AIR 1976 SC 376 in case of Shri Krishan V/s. Kurukshetra University, and 1982 0 BBCJ 302 in case of Amresh Kumar V/s. Principal, Medical College. 11. This Court has examined all the above rendered decisions but is constrained to state that the above decisions placed at the Bar do not help the contention of the private respondent in the given facts of her case. The question of principle of estoppel does not come into play because in the above rendered decisions in all the cases the petitioners were allowed to sit for the examination or get admitted to a course and were allowed to pursue the same and evencomplete it. It is only later when the thorities refused to declare the results or issue necessary certificates showing completion of the course that the Courts intervened and held that at this belated stage the authorities concerned could not be permitted to go back on the position having initially allowed admission as well as the completion of the courses in question. In the present case it is not a case that the private respondent was appointed and was allowed to work as a P.G.T. (Home Science) Teacher and then sought to be prevented from continuing on the post on discovery of the fact that she did not have the requisile qualification. In the present case the private respondent was not offered appointment at the very threshold, at the time of verification of the testimonials when it was found that she was not a trained Teacher and she did not have the requisites of training to enable her to be appointed on the post of RG.T. (Home Science). In view of the above factual position, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that none of the judgments referred to by the counsel for the private respondent are applicable to the present facts of the case and are of no help to the contention which has been placed at the Bar. 12. In view of the above factual position, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that none of the judgments referred to by the counsel for the private respondent are applicable to the present facts of the case and are of no help to the contention which has been placed at the Bar. 12. This Court is also of the opinion that the present petitioner has given widest publicity to correct the infirmity which was found in the advertisement dated 29.3.2003 contained only in "the Employment News" and not in any other advertisements and that corrigendum having been made within two days of the earlier advertisement and given widest publicity and there was full one month to the candidates to apply thereafter the conduct of the authorities cannot be found to be in any manner questionable. It is a case where the private respondent has either intentionally ignored to take the corrected position into account or has been negligent enough not to verify the position with regard to the minimum qualifications required for such appointment and the mere fact that she was allowed to sit for the examination and also called for the interview would not be enough to give her the advantage of appointment despite not possessing the minimum qualification demanded in the advertisement. It is a case where the appointed teacher would be imparting a quality education to the students of the Railway schools being run by the Ministry of Railway and this Court would not allow or permit a person not having the requisite training and the minimum qualification to impart knowledge or teaching to the students despite absence of the minimum qualifications required for such post. On the face of it, it may look like a hard case but on a dispassionate appraisal of the entire facts and the legal position, this Court cannot be moved by the compassion alone and that alone cannot be a ground for granting relief to her as has been done by the CAT Bench, Patna. 13. In view of the factual as well as legal position indicated, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 14.12.2004 in O.A. No. 528 of 2004 passed by the CAT directing the petitioner to issue a letter of appointment in her favour cannot be sustained. 14. This writ application is accordingly allowed and the order impugned is set aside. 14. This writ application is accordingly allowed and the order impugned is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.