Sarvan Kumar Yadav vs National Highway Authority Of India

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:-

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) intended to appoint Young Professionals (Finance) on contractual basis. The process involved conducting of a written test and verification of documents. The applicant offered his candidature as an OBC candidate. He was selected and has also joined duty. However, during the verification of records, it emerged that the applicant had furnished wrong information both as regards the marks secured by him in the examination of C.A. as well as the date of birth. Taking the same into account, the General Manager (Tech) passed an order dated 21.02.2020 directing disengagement of the applicant from service. It was followed by order dated 19.03.2020 stating that since his candidature is cancelled, the request of the applicant for salary for the period from 06.12.2019 to 21.02.2020 is not acceded to. This O.A. is filed challenging the aforesaid two orders.

The applicant contends that the mistake on both counts was purely inadvertent and the respondents were not justified in disengaging him. It is also stated that even if the correct figures are taken into account, the applicant would have been selected.

We heard Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and Shri Yogesh Pachauri, learned counsel for NHAI, at the stage of admission itself.

The applicant was engaged on contractual basis, as Young Professional (Finance). It appears that the passing in the CA is the prescribed qualification. In the context of mentioning the marks obtained in CA, the applicant stated that he secured 56% whereas the marks secured by him are 55.37% only. Assuming that the applicant made an attempt to round off the fraction to the next integer, the general principle is that any fraction below 0.5 is ignored and the rounding off, to the higher number can be, if only the fraction is above 0.5. The applicant uploaded his dossier by indicating that he secured 56% marks in CA.

The second aspect is about the date of birth. The notification mentioned that the candidate must be below 32 years of age as on 11.12.2018. The date of birth of the applicant is 15.08.1986. If that date is taken into account, he would be above the age of 32 years. However, he has mentioned his date of birth as 15.12.1986. Treating the information as valid, the respondents appointed the applicant. On verification, it emerged that his date of birth is 15.08.1986. The applicant would be outside the age limit.

Even if it were to be case, where the change of date of birth did not make a difference as regards eligibility. It would certainly reflect upon the honesty of the applicant. It is rather unfortunate that the applicant furnished manipulated information for the sole purpose of getting selected.

We do not find any merit in the O.A. and accordingly the same is dismissed. Pending MA also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.