MADHULIKA SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, who was appointed as a Library Assistant has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 11.8.10 issued by the respondent No.6 and a show cause notice dated 22.11.10 for initiating a disciplinary action against the petitioner and for reverting the petitioner from technical cadre to administrative staff.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Library Assistant in the services of Consortium for Scientific Research Indore Centre on 27.1.10 and submitted a joining in respect of the post in question on 16.7.2002. The petitioner has further stated that her probation period was over on 16.7.2003 and while serving as a Library Assistant the petitioner submitted a letter to the Administrative Officer intimating him that the petitioner has joined a Bachelor of Library & Information Science Decree Course (Correspondence Course). It was also requested to the authorities to grant leave at the time of examination. There was no reply received by the petitioner and again a letter was written by the petitioner on 24.9.2003 intimating the authorities that she will be appearing in BLIS examination in December, 2003 and a permission was also sought by the petitioner to appear in the examination. The petitioner has further stated that an order was issued on 3.11.2004 informing the petitioner that her period of probation was over and she was treated as a regular employee w.e.f. 26.11.2003. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of her repeated letters requesting grant of permission, permission was finally granted to her on 28.4.2006 to pursue the Bachelor of Library & Information Science Decree Course and to appear in the examination, though the petitioner by that time has already cleared the Bachelor of Library & Information Science Decree Course. The petitioner has further submitted that a letter was again sent to the respondents requesting them to grant permission to the petitioner to complete Masters Degree in Library and Information Science (through Correspondence Course) on 17.7.2006. The petitioner has further stated that she has informed the department about her BLIS Degree and the same was accepted by the respondents on 14.8.2006. The petitioner thereafter was directed to submit an application in prescribed formate vide letter dated 6.11.2006 for obtaining permission to conclude MLIS Course and the petitioner has submitted an application in prescribed formate. As no permission was granted by the respondents to complete masters course that too through correspondence, the petitioner has again requested the authorities on 10.11.2009, however she was informed by the respondent No.4 that the permission cannot be granted to the petitioner to pursue Masters Degree as she has not completed 4 years after obtaining a Bachelor Degree. The petitioner again requested the authorities on 15.1.10 and 20.5.2010 informing them that there is no such bye law which provides for such a condition as stated by the respondents in the letter dated 8.1.10. The petitioner has further stated that while all correspondences were going on she has finally cleared the Masters Course on 22.7.10. The petitioner's grievance is that an order was passed on 11.8.10 informing the petitioner that no ex-facto permission can be granted to her in respect of Masters Course and the qualification obtained by her in respect of MLIS Course will not be considered for grant of any service benefit. The petitioner has further stated that she immediately protested against the order dated 11.8.10 by submitting a representation to Grievance Redressal Cell on 5.10.10, however to utter surprise a show cause notice has been issued on 22.11.10 informing the petitioner as to why the disciplinary action should not be initiated against her and as to why she should not be reverted as Administrative Staff. The petitioner's contention is that the recruitment rules or byelaws do not provide for grant of any permission at any point of time for obtaining higher qualification and in case the petitioner she has obtained the qualifications through correspondence courses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that unless and until regulations governing the field provides for grant of permission even if it is presumed for a moment that the petitioner has obtained the degree in question without permission, no case for disciplinary action is made out in the matter. He has also argued before this Court that the petitioner is a lady and is being victimized by a male dominant society and though she has not committed any misconduct, all efforts are being made to harass and humiliate the petitioner for no rhyme and reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 11.8.10 as well as the show cause notice dated 22.11.10.

(3.) A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has obtained a Bachelor Degree in Library & Information Science without obtaining prior permission of the employer. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has again committed similar misconduct by appearing in the examination in respect of Masters Degree of Library and Information Science and, therefore they have rightly issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The respondents have categorically stated in the return that the petitioner for the first time intimated the employer on 3.8.2006 that she has obtained a Bachelor Degree and therefore, it was a case of misconduct, hence they have rightly issued the show cause notice. It has been stated that the petitioner as she has joined bachelor course as well as Masters Degree without prior permission or sanction of the employer she is responsible for the alleged misconduct. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner in her letter dated 24.6.2006 has categorically stated that she will not repeat such type of misconduct in future, and therefore, as per the petitioner own admission she has committed a misconduct again by appearing in Masters Course. The respondents have also stated that the administrative staff in case they acquire higher qualification are given the benefit of higher pay scale and the petitioner was granted the benefit of higher pay scale (technical staff) though she has not obtained permission at any point of time for prosecuting graduate as well as post graduate course. The learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the question of interference by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances does not arise.