SHIVANGI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants; Shri Anant Tiwari for first respondent and Shri Vivek Ratan Agarwal for the respondent-bank.

(2.) Present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 9.3.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11071 of 2017 (Shivangi Singh & 3 others Vs. Union of India & 3 others).

(3.) The record in question reflects that an advertisement dated 24.6.2013 was issued for recruitment to the post of House Keeper-cum-peon in Union Bank of India. The qualification prescribed for such post was 10th pass. In the same advertisement, a clause was also inserted that the candidates should not possess qualification higher than 10th pass. The petitioners-appellants filed a declaration to the effect that they were only High School passed and were not Intermediate. First and second petitioners applied under general category while third and fourth petitioners applied under OBC category. It is admitted fact that they all participated in the examination and finally the appointment letter had also been issued to them on 8.10.201 Upon completion of the probation period all the petitioners were confirmed. It transpires that show cause notices were issued to them levelling allegations to the effect that they all had suppressed the educational qualification despite the fact that requirement for the post of house keeper-cum-peon was only High School. All the petitioners had submitted their response. Finally on 5.8.2016 the charge sheet were issued to the petitioners and as per the charge sheet this much is clearly reflected that the charges were levelled against the petitioners to the effect that they all had suppressed the fact of being over qualified in obtaining appointment in the respondent bank. In reply thereto the petitioners had taken a stand that there was no intention to mislead the respondent bank. Finally memorandum dated 22.8.2016 were issued to the petitioners directing them to appear before the enquiry officer. After completion of the enquiry, finally the competent authority vide order dated 31.1.2017 had terminated the services of the petitioners holding that they all had proceeded to submit false affidavit and they had deliberately misled the bank that they were not having higher qualification than the prescribed qualification i.e. 10th pass. The said termination order was subjected to challenge in the aforesaid writ petition and finally the learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of the petitioners-appellants vide impugned order, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-