Blessed Prabhat Ranjan Nayak vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The case of the applicant in nutshell is that he was working as PSW under the National Health Mission in the establishment of DMO(MS)-cum-Superintendent, DHH, Baripada, Mayurbhanj. Respondent No.2 issued Advertisement No. AIIMS.BBSR/RECT/ 2023/990/B&C/1583 dated 01.07.2023 inviting applications [online mode] for Group 'B' and 'C' posts (Non-Faculty) of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar within a period of 30 days from the date of advertisement. Thereafter, through Notice No. RECT/6/2023-REC SEC dated 18.08.2023, the last date of submission of application for Phase-II was extended till 09.09.2023.

On 08.09.2023, the applicant submitted his application for the post of Psychiatric Social Worker [in short, PSW] in OBC (NCL) category. He was subjected to Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 19.11.2023, result of which was published on 20.12.2023, in which the applicant came out successful. After document verification on 28.12.2023, final result for the post of PSW was published on 20.03.2024 and the applicant was issued with the offer of appointment. After being relieved on 20.04.2024 from his previous employment, he joined as PSW in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 26.04.2024 and, while working as such, without any notice or without following due procedure of rules and cardinal principle of natural justice, Resp. No.3 cancelled his offer of appointment vide order dated 27.05.2024. According to him, the cancellation of his appointment being de hors the rules, law and principle of natural justice, he filed this OA seeking to quash the Order of cancellation of his appointment dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3, being illegal, arbitrary and offending to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service along with all the consequential service benefits.

Respondents filed counter stating therein that the applications were invited for three posts of Psychiatric Social Worker (PSW) category in AIIMS, BBSR from the candidates having Essential Educational Qualification of M.A. or M.Sc Degree in Psychology/Psychiatric Social Work from a recognised institute/University with 5 years working experience in vocational guidance and counseling in Psychiatric Centre and Specialization in Social Psychology was provided as the desirable qualification. Out of three vacancies, two vacancies belong to UR Category and the remaining one vacancy belong to OBC Category. The advertisement was published on 15.07.2023 in the Employment News and, therefore, the Cut of Date for submission of application, eligibility regarding Age, Experience, Educational Qualification & and others was 13.08.2023.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant, in course of hearing, submitted that after facing rigorous selection process and coming out successful, applicant got offer of appointment for the post of PSW; his joining report was accepted by the Competent Authority on 26.04.2024; and, he was allowed to work from 26.04.2024. But, after one month and one day, his appointment was cancelled on 27.05.2024, without any notice. However, by virtue of the interim order of this Bench and after the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 12462/2025, applicant was allowed by the Respondents to join in his duties on 05.05.2026 and he has been continuing as such till date. It is stated that possession of essential educational qualification was not in dispute. The only dispute relates to the computation of the requisite five years' experience in vocational counselling and guidance in a psychiatric centre. Respondents computed the applicant's experience only up to 13.08.2023, treating that date as the cut-off date for determining eligibility. On that basis, they have held that the Applicant fell short of the prescribed experience. The Applicant submitted online application for the post of PSW in response to the Notice dated 18.08.2023 as per which the opening date of submission of online application was 19.08.2023 and the closing date was 09.09.2023. Holding cut-off date as 13.08.2023 for inviting online applications as per Phase II Notice dated 18.08.2023 is contrary to the recruitment Notification itself. The Advertisement dated 01.07.2023 was published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar on 15.07.2023, but the online application portal for Phase-II, which includes the post of Psychiatric Social Worker (SI No. 4), was opened only on 19.08.2023. The Applicant submitted his online application on 08.09.2023, i.e. well before the closing date of 09.09.2023. There was no opportunity whatsoever for the Applicant to submit an online application before 19.08.2023. Consequently, fixing 13.08.2023 as the cut-off date for determining eligibility is arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to the recruitment notification. A candidate is not expected to satisfy eligibility on a date preceding the commencement of the application process for the concerned post. The Respondents themselves, in their counter, admitted that eligibility is to be determined with reference to the last date prescribed for receipt of applications. Having admitted, the Respondents cannot simultaneously rely the cut off date as 13.08.2023. Thus, the allegation is self-contradictory and unsustainable in law. It is stated that the applicant's experience ought to have been reckoned up to the closing date of receipt of online applications, i.e. 09.09.2023 and not 13.08.2023. The Applicant applied one day before the closing date, i.e. on 08.09.2023. If the correct cut-off date is applied in accordance with the Respondents' own admission and as per the terms of the Recruitment Notification, the rejection of the applicant's candidature on the ground of alleged deficiency in experience is not legally tenable. Rather, the working experience of the applicant is/was for 05 years and 14 days. The Applicant joined AIIMS after leaving a government assignment. In the process of litigation, he became over-aged. His legitimate expectation was frustrated by the Respondents without any legal basis after allowing him to join and work for a period of one month and one day. Hence the reliefs prayed for by the Applicant are to be allowed.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the essential qualification and experience for the said post are prescribed as master degree in psychiatric social work from recognized institution/university and 5 years experience in vocational guidance counseling in psychiatric Centre, Desirable specialization in social psychology. The applicant applied through online, wherein he submitted two experience certificates for showing 5 years experience, viz. two years experience as PSW during his M.Phil study from the post Graduate Institute of Behavioral and medical sciences, Raipur from 13.08.2016 to 13.08.2018 when he was prosecuted his study, which was not admissible being reacquisition of qualification; and, the other one of PSW at National Health Mission, Baripada from 20.02.2019 to 31.08.2023 i.e. 4 years 6 months 11 days. However, he, at the time of document verification for joining the post on 26.04.2024, managed to obtain/arrange another fresh experience certificate dated 15.02.2019 for the period from 07.08.2018 to 11.02.2019, i.e. 6 months 04/11 days issued by Dr. Samrat Kar only to cover up the shortfall period of 6 months 5 days from 5 years required experience, which certificate was not submitted by him at the time of his online application and, hence, the said certificate cannot be accepted under law. However, inadvertently, the said experience Certificate was accepted and the offer of provisional appointment was issued to him subject to acceptance of the terms and conditions made therein. The applicant accepted the terms and conditions and joined on 26.04.2024. The discrepancy relating to acquisition of five years experience having been noticed during verification of the documents, the offer of his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 23.05.2024. It is stated that the experience certificate obtained from National Health Mission Baripada is the only acceptable certificate having 4 years 6 moths and 11 days experience and, accordingly, as per his application, applicant is having only 4 years 6 months 11 days work experience against required 5 years experience certificate as mentioned in the Advertisement. Accordingly, it is stated that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

Before delving into the matter, it may be noted that after giving due opportunity to the respondents, this passed ad interim order on 06.02.2025, relevant portion of which is quoted below:

Respondents filed Review Application No. 06/2025 seeking review of the aforesaid order, which was dismissed on 26.03.2025. The respondents-AIIMS challenged the interim order dated 06.02.2025 passed in this OA and the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in RA No. 06/2025 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 12462/2025, which was disposed of on 24.03.2026 without any interference in the orders of this Bench. Ld. Counsel for the applicant, in course of hearing, has submitted that on the strength of the interim order, the applicant has been continuing under the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.

After giving indepth consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the pleadings of the parties and gone through the materials placed in support thereof. It is not in dispute both in the pleadings as well as in course of hearing that based on the online application, accompanied with the documents, applicant was subjected to various tests for the post of PSW and upon being qualified in the positive act of selection, he was issued with the Offer of Appointment and, accordingly, the applicant joined in the post of PSW in the AIIMS, BBSR, of course, his joining was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment dated 20.03.2024. Once, a candidate is selected and joined in the selected post, the offer of appointment gets exhausted and the person concerned is covered and governed by the set of rules framed by the Govt. of India commonly known as Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Thus, as per the provision of the said rules, the service of the employee can be terminated without assigning any reason by giving three months notice or three months in lieu thereof. Further, law is well settled that if the termination, in the instant case cancellation of offer of appointment, is by way of assigning reason, in such an eventuality, respondents were duty bound to give opportunity to the employee concerned of being heard in compliance with the principle of natural justice because it is settled law that not able to answer is no answer not to comply with the cardinal principle of natural justice. But, the respondents done away with the job of the applicant without following due principles of rules and natural justice to the extent stated above.

It is also established that the respondents made the applicant to face the rigorous of the tests with the experience certificates which he had submitted along with his application, i.e. experience certificate of 2 years and 1 day [13.08.2016 to 13.08.2018] in PSW of Post Graduate Institute of Behavioural and Medical Sciences, Raipur when he was a student of M.Phil on roll in the said Institution and of the National Health Mission, Baripada for 4 years and six months [20.02.2019 to 31.08.2023]. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant fraudulently or by misrepresentation applied, appeared, got selected and appointed. It is not the case of the respondents that the first experience certificate from 13.08.2016 to 13.08.2018, i.e two years and one day, was fraudulent one. Before being selected, he worked in The Clinic & Treatment Center for Mind & Nervous Diseases, Purighat Road, Cuttack and gathered experience for 6 months and 11 days [07.08.2018 to 11.02.2019], for which he was issued the certificate which he had produced. But, according to the respondents’ counsel, the said certificate was managed/arranged by the applicant, which submission cannot be accepted in absence of proper verification/inquiry from the Doctor, who had issued the certificate that too after giving due opportunity to the applicant because law is well settled that however suspicion grave may be that cannot be proved in a domestic inquiry. Admittedly, the applicant after resigning from the previous employment joined the post at AIIMS, BBSR based on the offer of appointment. He has been continuing to discharge his duty as PSW till date but no such adverse evidence has been brought into our notice by the respondents in discharging the onerous duties by the applicant.

It is also needless to state that the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that once a candidate is selected and appointed through a fair process, the cancellation of his/her appointment without any proven allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit is arbitrary, violates natural justice, and is bad in law. If a candidate secured a post honestly without hiding facts or cheating, a later cancellation or termination cannot be sustained. Cancelling an appointment or terminating a confirmed public servant requires a proper departmental inquiry and a chance to be heard; omnibus or sudden cancellation orders are legally invalid. Valid selection and continuous service create a legal right for the employee, preventing the authority from revoking the appointment arbitrarily. Recently, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2025:AHC:130987, held as under:

We have come across of a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Pradeep Tomar, W.P(C) No. 2529/2015 dated 18.03.2015, wherein, upon being selected, during verification of documents, due to shortfall of some conditions in the notification, appointment was denied to the said applicant. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, allowed the benefit to the applicant on the ground that the candidate can't be made to suffer at such a later stage, for a fault that was unintentional on his part and something that could have been intimated to him by the authorities at the initial or nascent stage itself, rather than waiting for the entire process to get over and suddenly realizing the deficiency. The Hon’ble Court observed that the plight of the candidate, who is on tenterhooks, is going through a myriad of emotions, his dreams at the verge of being jeopardised. It was also observed that -

The legal proposition highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant is a well-settled principle under Indian administrative law and service jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has often held that once a candidate is issued an offer of appointment and he submitted his joining report, the employer-employee relationship is substantially initiated. Once an employee has formally submitted a joining report, a vested right or an active employment status begins to accrue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court already clarified that administrative authorities cannot summarily cancel an appointment or terminate service without affording a proper opportunity of a hearing or issuing a show-cause notice. Doing so violates the core rules of natural justice, making the termination order bad in law and void. The authority must establish that the candidate willfully suppressed or misrepresented material facts before cancelling a job offer after the joining report has been submitted.

We also find that subjecting a candidate with the rigorous of positive act of selection after scrutinizing the declaration made by him/her in the application form supported with documents and declaring him/her successful in the selection, denying the candidate appointment, on the ground that the candidate did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the rules that too after sending him pre-requisite training and its successful completion whether such candidate got a right for appointment, finally received due consideration of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Uzair Imran & Ors, 2023 INSC 901, in which Their Lordships directed for giving appointment holding that it is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence. It was not within the province of the department to scrutinize the certificate of the candidate with an approach of “one eye open, one eyed closed” and declare that his intermediate education was in a “vocational stream”, overlooking or ignoring that the self-same certificate bore the remark ‘Regular’. The determination of the department, undoubtedly hinged on its scarce knowledge of the nature of the candidate’s education, evincing that his exclusion was not on the basis of a valid and proper reason and was, decidedly, arbitrary. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list - though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment - he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non- discriminatory treatment. Given the stages of the process that the candidate has successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could arise. The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment, as distinguished from the zone of consideration, without rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason. If plausible justification is provided, the courts would be loath to question the justification but the justification must be such that it is rational and justifiable, and not whimsical or capricious, warranting non-interference. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case is quoted below:

The order of termination was held illegal by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India & Others vs Bikash Kuanar, Appeal (Civil) No. 4388 of 2006 dated 11.10.2006, by holding that the candidate was recruited not only on the basis of marks obtained by him in the educational qualification, but also upon consideration of various other criteria necessary therefor. He filed all necessary and requisite documents. The candidature of all the candidates has been considered on their own merits and, thus, when a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the Official Act. In the present case, the applicant submitted all the documents, faced the due process of selection and it was only after the recommendation of the selection committee, he was issued with the offer of appointment pursuant to which, the applicant joined as PSW in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 26.04.2024. It is not the case of the Respondents that the applicant suppressed any such materials or the ground based on which his offer has been cancelled is in any manner attributable to the applicant. Rather, we find that prior to selection and appointment, the applicant was serving in State Govt. and, pursuant to the offer of appointment, in question, he resigned from his previous service and submitted joining report before the AIIMS, BBSR. In such a scenario, action terminating the offer, does not sound to appeal to judicial conscience. Admittedly, the applicant is continuing to serve AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on the strength of the interim order of this Bench dated 06.02.2025 and gained the experience meanwhile. The respondents department also did not point out any deficiency relating to the discharge of duty by the applicant. As it appears, he also became overaged by now to apply for any govt. job and throwing him out from employment at this stage would definitely have a cascading effect to his life.

In view of the facts and law discussed above, we find sufficient merit in this OA for granting the relief to the applicant. Hence, the cancellation of offer of appointment of the applicant dated 27.05.2024 is hereby quashed and since he has been continuing in the post in question, he is entitled to all consequential service benefits accordingly. OA is accordingly allowed. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of. Costs made easy.