L.ANITHA Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri CH. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dtd. 29/2/2024 (Annexure-P.9) whereby the department opined that the petitioner was ineligible for competing for the post of Office Subordinate and therefore, her appointment was cancelled. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no departmental enquiry has been conducted before passing the impugned order of termination of service. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family and passed the examination and therefore, the action taken by the respondents is bad in law.

(3.) Sounding a contra note, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement, which is based on the statutory requirement rules, the candidate should have passed Class-VII examination or its equivalent. Candidate, who failed Class-X examination, will also be considered eligible, but those who have higher qualification than that will not be considered eligible. In the teeth of this provision, petitioner was put to notice and her response was taken into account. Since she did not dispute that she possessed the higher qualification namely, Secondary School Certificate ('SSC') and passed the examination in the year 2011, she was clearly ineligible as per the advertisement and rules. Thus, even if an enquiry would have been conducted, petitioner would not have been in a position to take a different stand in relation to educational qualification. By placing reliance on a decision of Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reported in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v. Anit Kumar Das,(2021) 12 SCC 80. learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that no fault can be found in the impugned order.