Vivekanand S. Madiwal vs The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner had completed his SSLC and PUC and on completion of his typewriting examination, got himself registered with the Employment Exchange, Karwar, which had sponsored the names of candidates to various employers and his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Watchman. He was called for an interview by the respondent as on 11.06.1996 and by letter dated 14.06.1996, he was informed he had been selected to the post of Watchman, but, he was placed in a waiting list and ultimately by a communication dated 08.11.1999, he was called upon to undergo medical examination apart from submitting the original documents and an order of appointment was issued on 15.11.1999 as Watchman and he was directed to report at the Kumta Branch of the respondent.

It transpires that by a communication dated 05.05.2000, he was discharged from service. This was not preceded by any show cause notice and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before being served with such an order of discharge and that the Management had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for brevity) and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He had, therefore, sought for reconciliation. The Management failed to settle the matter before the Conciliation Officer and the State Government on receipt of the report of the Conciliation Officer, having satisfied itself of the existence of an industrial dispute, had referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court and a case was registered as CR No. 23/2001.

On issuing notice to the respondent and on consideration of the claim statement and the counter filed by the Management wherein it was contended that the petitioner was over qualified and the prescribed qualification was only SSLC and the candidate was required not to have studied beyond PUC with lesser marks of 50% and since the petitioner had suppressed his additional qualification of B.Com. etc., the Management had expressed that it had exercised its right and power to discharge him from service on account of the petitioner not being duly qualified and which had been suppressed. Therefore, the Tribunal had ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present writ petition.

The learned counsel would point out that the Labour Court has proceeded to reject the claim with reference to Regulation 14 of the Staff Regulation of the respondent-Corporation and the said Regulation militates against the mandate contained in Section 25-F of the Act and the regulation could have had the effect of over riding Section 25-F of the Act and the said glaring circumstance is completely overlooked by the Tribunal. The fact of the petitioner being possessed of a higher qualification was never suppressed or concealed, in that, the petitioner''s qualification were appraised at the time of his interview and all his testimonials were provided at the relevant point of time and in spite of which he having been appointed as a Watchman, it was unlawful for the respondent to have discharged him from service without the same being preceded by an enquiry and an opportunity of hearing. In this regard, the learned counsel places reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court as regards the additional or higher qualification never being an impediment for employment to a post for which lesser qualification is prescribed and therefore, would submit that the case of the petitioner had to be considered in the light of the law of the land which the Tribunal has miserably failed to appreciate and hence, seeks appropriate relief.

While the learned counsel for the respondent, in support of its statement of objections, has contended that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that he had not suppressed facts. In his application form, he had indicated that he had studied upto SSLC and PUC and he belonged to Other Backward Class category. On investigation, it was proved that the petitioner had secured the appointment on a misrepresentation as to his original qualification. In the month of December, 1991, it had come to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had passed B.Com. decree examination in the year 1990 itself. The very act of the petitioner suppressing his educational qualification in order to secure such an appointment as against the stipulation made by the respondent to the specific effect that the candidate should not possess any degree or educational qualification beyond SSLC and PUC with more than 50% marks and that graduates were not eligible for the post of Watchman, has been completely overlooked and deliberately suppressed by the petitioner.

In this regard, the want of an enquiry or need for an enquiry did not arise as the petitioner himself had produced the documents before the Labour Court to indicate that he possessed a B.Com. degree and the learned counsel would contend that, notwithstanding the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., has held that a candidate loses all eligibility even to seek redressal before any court of law, if, he has committed fraud in securing the employment. It is therefore, contended that the action of the present petitioner was akin to fraud when he has suppressed his education qualification only in order to secure employment and therefore in exercise of powers under Regulation 14 of the Staff Regulation, the respondent-Corporation had discharged the petitioner from the post of Probationary Watchman as he had secured employment on a misrepresentation and the Labour Court has rightly appreciated this aspect of the matter in upholding the discharge of the petitioner. There is no injustice caused and it is also pointed out that the discharge was of the year 2000 and as on date, the question of reinstating the petitioner or granting him any benefit would not arise and therefore seeks dismissal of the petition.

Given the above facts and circumstances, notwithstanding the view expressed by the Supreme Court that higher qualification ought not to be an impediment for a candidate to secure employment where a lesser qualification is prescribed. The fact that the petitioner, in this case on hand, had suppressed the fact that he possessed a higher qualification, only in order to secure employment because the respondent had specifically indicated that the candidates with more qualification than PUC need not apply and graduates were not eligible, had been violated by the petitioner which is an act which impinges on his integrity and honesty and since there is no one to watch a watchman, it would be undesirable to have such a person as Watchman. Accordingly, the respondent having chosen to discharge the petitioner was in order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.