Urmi Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J

(1) The grievance of the petitioner is directed against a final order dated 6th September, 2012, rejecting the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement to the post of an Anganwadi worker under Pandua, ICDS Project.

(2) The brief facts culminating in the filing of the instant petition are as follows:-

(a) On 25th January, 2006 a Memorandum being G.O. No. 288-SW/3S-225/05 dated 25th January, 2006 was issued by the Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal for recruitment of Anganwadi workers.

(b) Clause 7 (b) (ii) of the Memorandum categorically provided that candidates who are graduates would not be eligible for the post of an Anganwadi worker. Moreover, it was expressly stated that, if a graduate suppresses her academic qualification and is selected to the post of an Anganwadi worker, her services could be terminated without assigning any reason.

(c) Pursuant to the aforesaid publication, the petitioner applied for the post of an Anganwadi worker. It is alleged by the State respondents that the petitioner suppressed the fact that she was a qualified graduate at the time of filing her application for an Anganwadi worker. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected to the post of an Anganwadi worker. It is further alleged by the State respondents that, before joining the said post the petitioner affirmed an affidavit on 11th October, 2007 before the Executive Magistrate, Hooghly at Chinsurah wherein she specifically stated in Clause 3 of the said affidavit that she was not a graduate.

(d) On 8th August, 2007 an appointment letter was issued by the Child Development Project Officer appointing the petitioner as an Anganwadi worker. It is pertinent to mention that Clause 3 and 8 of the appointment letter categorically provided that if at a later stage it is found that the petitioner has made any false declaration in respect of her qualification or otherwise her appointment would be forthwith terminated.

(e) Upon receiving a complaint, the State respondents sought information in respect of the qualification of the petitioner from the Bijoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya. By a letter dated 23rd March, 2009, the principal of the College informed the respondent authorities that the petitioner had graduated in the year 2001 from their college. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the respondents conducted an enquiry. In terms of an earlier order passed by this Hon'ble High Court a fresh hearing was also held on 31st August, 2012.

(f) After conducting a fresh hearing, the concerned authorities issued an order dated 6 September, 2012 ("the order") and terminated the appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwadi worker primarily on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed her educational qualifications and had also given false information regarding her education qualification.

(3) It is in the background that the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6 September, 2012 passed by the respondent authorities. It is pertinent to mention that the reasons enumerated in the order exclusively pertain to the fact that the petitioner had suppressed the real facts before the Office of the Child Development Project Officer and had given false information declaring that she was not a graduate.

(4) Counsel on behalf of the State respondents assailed the order primarily on the ground that the same was passed contrary to judgment in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 CLJ, 321. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the said decision over qualification was not a ground to reject a candidate. Thus, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on the ground that she was over qualified. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was being victimised and that the order was passed contrary to all principles of justice and fair-play.

(5) Counsel on behalf of the State respondents supported the order and submitted that the same was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally suppressed her education qualifications with the ultimate object of obtaining an appointment as an Aganwadi worker. The suppression on the part of the petitioner was deliberate and intentional. It was further submitted on behalf of the State respondents, that they were fully justified in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that she had suppressed necessary and vital information from the State authorities.

(6) At the outset, it is important to remind ourselves that, the exercise of the powers by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. The discretion vested in a Court is a "judicial discretion" which is to be exercised according to the sound judicial principles. Suppression of material facts or misrepresentation disentitles a person from getting any relief in exercise of this jurisdiction.

(7) It is now well settled that, if a candidate who furnishes false and incomplete information or withholds material information in the application form, would be debarred from an appointment and if already appointed, his or her services are liable to be terminated for furnishing false information. Union of India & others vs. Sukhen Chandra Das (2008) 17 SCC 125, Para 13. Manoj Kumar vs. Government of NCJ of Delhi and others (2010) 11 SCC 702, Para 8. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437, Para 12. In my view, a litigant who indulges in such suppression and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment.

(8) It is an admitted position that the Memorandum dated 25th January, 2006 specifically provided for certain terms and conditions regarding the academic qualification of a prospective candidate. By virtue of the said Memorandum, it was categorically provided that graduates were not eligible for the post of Anganwadi worker. Moreover, the Memorandum provided if a graduate suppressed his or her academic qualification and was selected to the post of Anganwadi worker his or her services were liable to be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason. Accordingly, I am of the view that the terms of the Memorandum dated 25th January, 2006 categorically and expressly provided that graduate candidates were not eligible for the post of Anganwadi workers. There were severe consequences specifically spelt out in the Memorandum for suppressing such information. The application of the petitioner was filed sometime in the year 2006. It is an indisputable position that the petitioner had not deliberately and intentionally disclosed the factum of her graduation or qualification in the application form for appointment as an Aganwadi worker. The letter issued by the Bijoy Narayan Mahavidiyalaya categorically stated that the petitioner had graduated in the year 2001. In the circumstances, I am of the view that, the suppression of material facts and misrepresentation made on the part of the petitioner disentitles her from any relief.

(9) I do not agree with the petitioner on the interpretation of the decision of the Full Bench in Rina Dutta & Ors. vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 CLJ, 321. It is elementary that a judgment is an authority for the legal position that it specifically decides and not which is deemed to have been considered or decided.

(10) Paragraph 19 of the Full Bench judgment brings out the essence and the consideration which weighed with the Full Bench in delivering the judgment.

"19. It is, however, not necessary to pursue this discussion any further because we have already held that the advertisement did not specifically debar or disqualify graduate women from applying for the post of Anganwadi Workers and, therefore, the engagement of the appellants and the other private respondents in the writ petition as Anganwadi Workers could not be said to be illegal on the touchstone of the advertisement. It is true that if the provisions of the scheme were to be applied, the appellants and the 4th private respondent would be in difficulty. However, having regard to the fact that the appellants and others were appointed way back in 1998 and they have continued in employment for the last 12 years and the advertisement specifically did not disqualify or debar graduate women, we are not inclined to disturb their appointment. To that extent the appeal will have to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in the writ petition including the three appellants herein is set aside. The writ petition will accordingly have to be dismissed."

(11) I am of the view that the decision rendered in Rina Dutta (Supra) is certainly not an authority for the proposition that an over qualified candidate who is aware that over qualification would be a ground of rejection of candidature is entitled as a matter of right to employment regardless of the terms and conditions of employment.

(12) As stated hereinabove, the petitioner was fully aware that being a graduate disentitled her to the job of an Aganwadi worker under the Memorandum dated 25th January, 2006. Notwithstanding this vital fact the petitioner deliberately and intentionally suppressed this fact before the authorities to obtain a wrongful gain or undue advantage.

(13) In view of the aforesaid, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 6th September, 2012. In view of the clear act of suppression on the part of the petitioner, I do not find that the petitioner can have any lawful right to be employed as an Aganwadi worker under the Memorandum dated 25th January, 2006. However, if there is any change in the criteria for selection in future, any application which would be filed by the petitioner in the future would be decided in accordance with extant laws.

(14) W.P No. 1178 (W) of 2013 is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

(15) Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.