MARY SAI KUMARI Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY REGION IV STATE BANK OF INDIA VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a better qualification be a disqualification? It should not be and that is the universal approach. But, in out country, in some cases better qualification is a handicap and the instant case is a glaring example of the same.

(2.) The petitioner is a scheduled caste woman whose economical condition was very poor and whose parents could not afford to educate her any further beyond 10th Class (SSC). She had failed in 10th Class (SSC) examination held in the year 1975. Poor economic condition forced her to remain in that stage and obviously, she could not seek employment at that age and that too with that qualification of SSC fail. Hoping to get at-least a Sweeper or an Attender's post, she registered her name with employment exchange during the year 1978 bearing Registration No. 928/78. But, even after waiting for four years, she did not get a call. During October 1982, she again appeared SSC examination with a fond hope of getting some employment, if she passes SSC examination. She did pass SSC examination, but only in 3rd class. But, poor girl did not know that she has incurring disqualification to hold the post of an Attender or Sweeper in the establishment of the respondents by passing SSC examination. During the end of 1983, she got a call for appointment to a post of Sweeper-cum-Water-woman in the Office of the respondents. She was appointed initially in February, 1984 on temporary basis and was made permanent in that post with effect from 1-9-1984. But, that lasted only just over an year, as on 16-11-1985, she was visited with show cause notice calling her to explain as to why she should not be discharged from service on the ground that she suppressed of having passed the SSC examination. While SSC fail is a qualification for appointment, a pass in SSC is a disqualification for that post. In the said disciplinary action, the enquiry officer submitted adverse reports stating that even though the petitioner had passed SSC as on the date of her interview, she has suppressed that fact and in the form filled up for appointment, she had declared to have failed in SSC, but by that time, she had already passed SSC and as such, this wilful suppression to get employment amounts to misconduct and basing on the said report, the disciplinary authority has held her of having committed misconduct mentioned above and inflicted the punishment of discharge from service and the result is this writ petition and the writ petition having been admitted, stay of operation of the impugned order of discharge was granted by this Court and the same is holding the field even on this day.

(3.) Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no wilful suppression of any fact so as to warrant the inflictment of the harshest punishment of discharge from the post which results in deprivation of livelihood of herself and family members. He further submits that not only the fundamental right under Article 21 is violated, but also the equality clause enshrined under Articles 14 and 16. He cited the judicial precedents rendered by the Supreme Court in H. D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1986 SC 132, Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah, AIR 1993 SC 929, and also on an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in OJC No. 1456/84 in support of his arguments.