ASGAR ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner came to be appointed as Accounts Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 475 -850. The order by which petitioner came to be so selected has been placed on record as Annexure P1. For facility of reference, this order is being reproduced below:

(2.) THE further fact is that after verifying the qualification certificate, age and health, character and status of the petitioner as State subject, further order was issued. This was issued on 1 -12 -1983. This order was issued by the District Education Officer, Kargil. The further fact is that another order was issued. Copy of this order is Annexure P3. The recital in the order was that minimum qualifications which were required for this post were not possessed by the petitioner. It was accordingly felt that the petitioner could not be appointed as Accounts Clerk, but could be given the job of Junior Assistant or a teacher. It is this order which came to be challenged in this court.

(3.) LD . counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order (Annexure P3) is not based on proper appreciation of the factual position. It is stated that the petitioner did possess the basic qualifications. It is further submitted that the respondent state verified qualification certificate and other qualifications. For this period reference is being made to order P1 and P2. It is accordingly urged that the State is estopped from taking a stand to the effect that the petitioner being not qualified, was not entitled to hold the post of Accounts Clerk. The plea of equitable estoppel has thus been pressed in service. So far as the claim of equitable estoppel is concerned, reference be made to one of the earliest decisions on the subject reported as Registrar, University of Madras vs. Sundara Shetti, AIR 1956 MAD 309. In this case the petitioner appeared for Secondary School leaving certificate examination held by government in March 1952. Certificate was given by the University that he is eligible for admission to the University course of studies. He got admission in Madras University. While he was undergoing his course of study, he was informed by the Principal of the College that his admission is liable to be cancelled as his name was not found mentioned in the list of candidates eligible for University course of study. This was challenged in the High Court. While dealing with this aspect of the matter Rajamannar, C.J. in para 15 observed: