AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III on the strength of his merit in the recruitment process, which commenced with the advertisement
dated 23-6-2010 issued by the Commissionerate of Higher Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
The petitioner was appointed on 19-8-2010, however, soon thereafter a complaint was made that the petitioner secured appointment without having
the requisite qualification for the post of AG III. The matter was enquired in which the petitioner was permitted to participate and eventually the order
was passed by the Commissionerate of Higher Education directing the Principal of college to cancel the petitioner's appointment.
Under the subject advertisement, the candidate applying for the post of AG III was required to pass Higher Secondary School Certificate
Examination and should possess the speed of 25 w.p.m. in Hindi Typing from a recognised Board and should also have one year diploma certificate in
Data Entry Operator/ Programming with Data Entry speed of 5000 key depression per hour from an institution recognised by the Government.
Admittedly, the petitioner was having the required certificates for the first two qualifications, but for the third qualification the institute from where
he obtained the certificate of Data Entry Operator/ Programming was not the Govt. approved institution.
By an interim order dated 29-6-2011 the effect, operation and execution of the impugned order has been stayed and the petitioner is continuing in
the services for the last more than 8 years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also obtained the required certificate of Data Entry
Operator/Programming from the recognised University i.e. Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, vide certificate dated 22-10-2012.
The petitioner has not withhold any information nor the certificate obtained by him from the Association of State Technology Developments was
found to be spurious or forged. The only question was whether the said institute was recognised or not. It was for the respondents to have verified the
certificate before issuing the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner. In absence of petitioner having concealed any information from the
recruiting agency or the appointing authority he cannot be blamed or accused of obtaining the order of appointment on misrepresentation or fraud,
therefore, for the fact that the petitioner has subsequently obtained the required qualification from a recognised University/Institution would come to
his rescue more particularly for the reason that by an interim order passed by this Court the petitioner continued in service and at present he has
rendered more than 8 years of service as AG III, therefore, since as on date the petitioner possesses all the requisite qualifications for the post of AG
III, the impugned order dated 14-6-2011 deserves to be and is hereby quashed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost(s).