AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMAN SHYAM
1.Heard Mr. N. H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, whereas Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appears for respondent No.4.
By filing this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of the respondent No.4 in the post of Peon in the office of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji. The basic ground of challenge is that as per the advertisement notice dated 22.05.2013 the minimum educational
qualification for the post was fixed at Xth standard whereas the maximum educational qualification was of XIIth standard. However, the respondent
No.4 had applied for the post by suppressing the fact she had obtained the graduation degree from Dibrugarh University in the year 1999. In the
selection process the respondent No.4 was selected at the top of the merit list and accordingly appointment order was issued in her favour by the
concerned authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner could obtain information from the University authorities through RTI application and thereafter, he
came to know that the respondent No.4 was over-qualified for the post and hence, she did not meet the eligibility requirement under the
advertisement. Hence, this writ petition.
The respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit inter-alia admitting the fact that she had obtained the graduation degree in the year 1999 but it is the
stand of the respondent No.4 that since her graduation certificate was misplaced, hence, the said qualification was not disclosed by her while
submitting the application in response to the advertisement notice.
Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, submits that the respondent No.4 was found to be more meritorious
than others and hence, was selected at the top position in the merit list but the authorities were unaware of the fact that she was a graduate since the
aforesaid fact was suppressed by the respondent No.4. The learned senior counsel further submits that it is a clear case of suppression of material
facts in as much as the respondent No.4 was clearly not eligible for applying for post of Peon under the advertisement notice dated 22.05.2013. As
such, her appointment may not be sustainable in law. However, due to the pendency of this proceeding before this Court, the respondent authorities
had desisted from taking any further action in the matter.
As noted above, there is no doubt about the fact that candidates having qualification below Xth standard and above XIIth standard were ineligible
for the post of Peon as per the advertisement notice. It is also the admitted position of fact that the respondent No.4 was a graduate on the date on
which the advertisement notice was issued but she had suppressed the aforesaid fact only to secure the appointment. It is, therefore, evident that the
selection and appointment of the respondent No.4 is in violation of the advertisement notice as well as the rules applicable thereof. As such, the
respondents would be required to take appropriate action in the matter after hearing the respondent No.4.
Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, submits that if leave is granted to the respondents then necessary action in accordance with law will be taken
in the matter.
In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition by granting leave to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, to take appropriate action in the matter as
expeditiously as possible. However, while doing so, the respondent No.4 would be served with a show cause notice giving her an opportunity to
explain her stand. A decision in the matter may be taken within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of this order. If the petitioner continues to
remain aggrieved in the matter even thereafter, it would be open for him to approach this Court by filing appropriate application.
Writ Petition stands disposed of.