KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. RAM RATAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was selected for the post of Physical Education Teacher. An appointment order dated 16-12-1997 was issued to him. On getting the appointment order, he was required to fill in the attestation form. As against column No. 12(I) of the said attestation form, he mentioned "No" despite the fact that a criminal case was pending against him in the Court of law. On the ground of suppression of factual information in the attestation form, his services were terminated by the Memorandum dated 7/8-4-1999. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1150/99 challenging the said order of termination contending that he had education in Hindi medium and he is not well conversant with English words. As such, he failed to understand the meaning of the word prosecution or conviction. Under the misconceived notion, he did not take note of the column No. 12 in the attestation form. He also submitted that whatever was done by him, was in order to get employment because at the relevant time, he was undergoing great difficulty. It was his case that the incident took place at Rajpure Square (Jabalpur) where number of persons were raising their grievances against the State authorities relating to non-grant of earthquake relief; he was not at all part of that mob; while he was passing, a few demonstrators who were his friends pulled him into the mob; he, all of a sudden, later learnt that a case has been registered against him under Ss. 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with S. 34, I.P.C. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. at the admission stage itself observing that "the intention for suppression and giving false information and the explanation following it that lack of knowledge in English resulted in the misunderstanding of the meaning of the word prosecution does not inspire any confidence in us. In the instant case, the applicant is a graduate and a bare look of the attestation indicates that the applicant intentionally concealed the facts. The Courts/Tribunals are not to pat a person on his shoulders in a case where he is making false statement to the authorities concerned for obtaining employment. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum."

(2.) Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the correctness and validity of the same. The Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties, allowed the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and held that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service and entitled to consequential benefits. In allowing the writ petition, the High Court observed thus :-

(3.) The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the High Court made in the writ petition.