DAYA CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the three writ petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to allow them to join the post of Fire Operators on consideration of the fact that they were selected for undergoing the basic course for appointment to the post of Fire Operators and successfully completed the said course.

(2.) The respondents sought for a few names from the Employment Exchange/Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes Welfare Association for appointment to the posts of Fire Operators. In pursuance of the aforesaid request of the respondents the Employment Exchange sponsored the names of several candidates including the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners were directed vide letter dated 19.7.1991 by the Personnel Manager of the International Airport Authority of India (in short IAAI) to report for physical standards verification, driving test and stamina test. In clause O.3 of the said letter it was made clear to the petitioners that they were required to bring with them the original certificates/ testimonials/heavy motor vehicle license etc. in proof of their age, educational qualifications, experience etc. Clause 0.5 of the said letter further stated that the petitioners were provisionally allowed for the selection subject to their producing valid heavy motor vehicle license on the date of selection. Clause 10 further stipulated that the management of IAAI reserved the right to reject the candidature of the petitioners if the information furnished by them was found to be false at any stage of the selection. In pursuance of the aforesaid call notice the petitioners appeared for the various tests as mentioned in the aforesaid letter and also for the interview, and by letter dated 22.11.1991 issued by the Deputy General Manager on behalf of the AHA the petitioners were informed that they had been selected for basic course for Operators in IAAI before they were actually appointed as Fire Operators on certain terms and conditions. In paragraph 2 of the said letter it was stipulated that their selection for basic course was based on the information furnished by them in their application/personal data form/ attestation form. It was made clear that in the event of any incorrect information or any suppression of information in respect of their qualification, experience, age, character and antecedents coming to notice it will be treated as serious misconduct entailing termination of service. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted their joining report for the basic course training and successfully completed the same and were released from the training on 22.4.1992. However, by letter dated 26.11.1992 the respondents called for certain documents from the petitioners before they were taken on regular rolls of IAAI. On 18.8.1993 the petitioners were sent for medical test. However, inspite of production of all the materials directed to be famished and successfully completing the medical tests the petitioners w ere not given the order to join the post of Fire Operators, although other similarly situate persons selected alongwith the petitioners and successfully completing the training course alongwith them were allowed to join the post of Fire Operators.

(3.) The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that after the petitioners completed their basic training course in April, 1992 certain lapses of serious nature in appointment of the trainees including the petitioners came to the notice of the management and that the matter was considered by the Department of Vigilance and Personnel at IAAI Headquarters in great detail. It was decided with the approval of the Chairman IAAI that a Committee comprising of Senior Officers of IAAI be constituted by Headquarters which should re-check the Bio data of the candidates vis-a- vis their original certificates/ testimonials to ensure that they fulfil the minimum prescribed job specifications for the post which includes qualification acquired and validity of the original driving license etc. for the post. Accordingly, the Committee consisting of Senior Officers called 13 candidates on 18.8.1993 and re-checked the Bio data of the candidates including the two petitioners namely the petitioner No.l & petitioner No. 2 vis-a-vis their original certificates/testimonials to find out as to whether they fulfil the qualifications for the post of Fire Operators or not. The committee decided that the third petitioner namely - Shri Nawal Singh need not be called for verification of the testimonials as he had earlier failed in driving test. The Committee, on examination of the aforesaid records found that the petitioners No. 1 & 2 including 4 others had acquired heavy motor vehicle driving license before the age of 20 years by fraudulent means which violates the statutory requirement as per Motor Vehicles Act. It was further found that the matriculation certificates furnished by petitioner No.2 was doubtful as there were erasings and corrections in the original certificates. It was further stated that in view of the above discrepancy, the appointing authority after taking a conscious decision debarred 6 candidates including petitioners No. 1 & 2 from the appointment as Fire Operators, whereas the third petitioner was not called for re-checking of the documents for the reason that he had earlier failed in the driving test and therefore, w as not entitled to appointment. The reasons for not giving appointment to the two petitioners have thus been spelt out in the counter affidavit as the said two petitioners had obtained a heavy motor vehicle driving license by deliberately furnishing a false information by concealing the age/date of birth to the State Transport Authority and not as mentioned in their High School Certificate which is generally and normally considered and accepted as proof of age.