UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATUBHA RAVUBHA JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, (for short, 'The Tribunal') Ahmedabad vide order dated 13.10.2011 passed in Original Application No.63 of 2009 with M.A. No. 347 of 2010, the petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the said order.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the present respondent was engaged as Casual Labourer with the petitioners' department w.e.f. 11.11.1983 under Permanent Way Inspector of Bhatia, Rajkot Division. The respondent had furnished information such as age, qualification etc. In the meantime, as per the directions of the Supreme Court, DRM, Rajkot published a seniority list and the respondent was shown at sr.No. 4674 at page No. 110 vide DRM's letter dated 24.12.1994 and the respondent was allotted with seniority number as 5461. It is the allegation of the respondent that ignoring the claim of the respondent, some juniors were regularized by Rajkot Division. It is the case of the petitioners that at the initial engagement of the respondent, he had furnished false information regarding his age that he was 18 and half years old. In fact he was born on 30.3.1967 and therefore, on the date of his employment i.e. on 11.11.1983 he was only 16 years, 7 months and 11 days old. Similarly the respondent had stated that he passed SSC examination whereas he had failed in Gujarat Secondary Education Board Examination. The respondent worked with the Railway by providing false information regarding his age and qualification. The respondent had completed 447 days as Casual Labourer upto 30.7.1984 and he had completed 18 years of age on 30.3.1985. Thus he did not render his services after completion of 18 years of age. The requirement for regularization is that the casual employee must have completed 120 days of service. Thus he is not entitled to regularization as he had never worked with the petitioner department after attaining the age of 18 years. The respondent was orally discontinued from service. Being aggrieved by the oral order, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad by filing OA No.410/95 which was disposed of at the admission stage vide order dated 9.8.1995 with direction to the petitioners to allow the respondent or his Advocate to examine the seniority list and that no person junior to the respondent would be re -engaged overlooking his claim. Pursuant to this order the applicant was informed vide letter dated 11.12.2001 that his name appeared at sr.No. 3980 in the revised seniority list of unskilled labour and that the respondent can verify the same. The main grievance of the respondent was on re -engagement and absorption of MR Harji Chana and Laxman Meru, who according to him are junior to him on the basis of number of days they have worked. The Tribunal has directed the petitioners that till certain clarificatory instructions are issued, one post shall not be filled and it was directed to be kept vacant and shall not go for further fresh open market recruitment in group - D in Rajkot division. However, the claim of the respondent was not considered by the petitioners. In the fourth round of litigation, the Tribunal, by order dated 13.10.2011, had quashed and set aside the communication dated 9.9.2008 of the petitioner department rejecting the claim of the respondent with a direction to take immediate action to implement the clarifications issued by the Railway Board pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal in OA No.139/05 and decide the claim of the respondent on the basis of seniority list within a period of two months from the date of receipt of that order. This order is challenged by the present petitioners in this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr Ramnandan Singh has submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the respondent provided false information regarding his age and qualification at the time of engagement as Casual Labourer. He has submitted that this ground alone is sufficient not to regularize the services of the respondent. The respondent did not serve for a single day after attaining the age of 18 years and thus he did not fulfil the criteria of working as casual labourer for 120 days with the Railway Department. He has submitted that the services rendered by the respondent were illegal and could not be relied upon for counting 120 days as he had not completed 18 years of age during the service. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the case of A. P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Vekateswarulu and Ors reported in AIR 2005 SC 4292 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that employment obtained by false pretence does not deserve to be given public employment and even inadvertence cannot be pleaded by a candidate and therefore, the rejection of candidature has been held to be proper. The second decision relied on by the learned Counsel is in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1709 (1), wherein the Supreme Court has held that termination of service which was ordered on the ground of suppression of fact that criminal proceedings were pending against employee at the time of appointment and the employee's plea that medium of instruction of employee was Hindi and therefore, he could not correctly understand the relevant clause of the attestation form was held to be not tenable and the fact that the criminal proceedings for offences not involving moral turpitude and that proceedings were subsequently withdrawn was confirmed by the Supreme Court by holding it to be just and proper. The third decision relied on by the learned Counsel is in the case of R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police, reported in AIR 2008 SC 578 wherein the Supreme Court has held that appointment by suppressing material fact for the post of Fireman, by not disclosing in his application, material fact as to his involvement in criminal case that too a cognizable offence under Section 294 (b) of Indian Penal Code, non -selection of the applicant was held to be just and proper. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Manoj Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702, in para 8 it is held as under : -