BANARASI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal on 28 -2 -1979 alongwith 176 other persons. On 3 -2 -1991, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification, which, according to the respondents, was High School and also that he had not obtained his training as Lekhpal. The petitioner challenged the said suspension order by way of filing a writ petition and by order dated 26 -2 -1991, this Court stayed the operation of the suspension order. On the same grounds, a charge sheet dated 2 -5 -1991 was served on the petitioner requiring him to explain how he had obtained the appointment as Lekhpal by concealing material facts. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge sheet on 28 -6 -1991 stating that under the Rules the minimum qualification required for appointment of a Lekhpal was Junior High School, which qualification the petitioner possessed. It was also stated that the Rules could not be amended by a circular of the Board of Revenue so as to change the minimum qualification for appointment as Lekhpal to the High School. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 30 -3 -1995, withdrew the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid charge sheet and the suspension order was also withdrawn. Immediately within a period of six weeks thereafter, the respondents again on 12 -5 -1995, issued a fresh show cause notice on the same grounds/charges that the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification for appointment as Lekhpal. The petitioner again submitted his detailed reply on 17 -5 -1995. However, the respondent No. 4 Up Ziladhikari/Appropriate Authority, Nautanwa, District Mahrajganj passed the impugned order dated 16 -6 -1995 stating that the services of the petitioner were no longer required and hence under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 the petitioner was given one month's notice and on the expiry of the said period, the services of the petitioner shall deem to have come to an end. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16 -6 -1995, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri A.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the record. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the impugned order dated 16 -6 -1995 is liable to be set aside and this writ petition is liable to be allowed.

(3.) FROM the facts of this case it appears that the respondents were desirous of dispensing with the services of the petitioner on some ground or the other. He was first suspended in the year 1991 on the same grounds on which the subsequent notice dated 12 -5 -1995 had been issued to him. Passing of the order dated 30 -3 -1995, withdrawing the departmental proceedings as well as suspension order against the petitioner, clearly amounted to discharging the petitioner of the charge that he did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as Lekhpal. At no stage the petitioner had misrepresented that he had passed High School. It cannot thus be said that the petitioner had concealed any material fact, as it is his case that he possessed the requisite qualifications as prescribed under the Rules. As such the petitioner cannot be held guilty of concealing any fact at the time of obtaining his appointment. Even otherwise, the apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371, while dealing with the question as to whether the petitioners therein possess the requisite qualifications to hold the post or not, has held that practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.