The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that where there is no concealment or misrepresentation by the employee the State cannot terminate services on the ground of qualification after a lapse of 15 years.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by State Of U.P Through Principal Secretary Civil Defence Lko and Others.
The special appeal is preferred by the State against the order dated 22.03.2021, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/respondent against the order dated 16.09.2019 dismissing him from the service has been allowed and the order impugned has been quashed. State respondents have been directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Deputy Controller with all consequential benefits.
The facts of the case, as noticed by the Single Judge, are that a number of posts were advertised by the Directorate of Civil Defence, U.P including five posts of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale on 08.09.1989.
The petitioner/respondent applied in the category of Scheduled Tribe for the said post and after going through the selection process, he was declared successful and an appointment letter dated 28.06.1990 was issued on 17.07.1990.
He was confirmed in service vide order dated 26.08.1998 and thereafter, promoted to the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Senior Scale on 11.01.2008 and was further promoted to the post of Deputy Controller on 31.07.2013.
A show cause notice dated 08.02.2019, i.e, after about 30 years of his appointment, was issued to the petitioner/respondent to explain as to why his services may not be terminated as he has wrongly taken the benefit of his belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
He submitted his reply. Whereafter, impugned order dated 16.09.2019 was passed by the State respondents, inter alia, on coming to the conclusion that as the ‘Meena’ community is not notified as Tribe in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the selection made in the year 1990 was contrary to the Government Orders and therefore, the order dated 28.06.1990, appointing the petitioner was cancelled and he was dismissed from the service.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/respondent filed the petition.
The Court observed that,
It appears that at the relevant time, when the appointment was accorded to the respondent, the issue as to whether a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes of other State was entitled to seek benefit of reservation in another State was not settled inasmuch as in Sunil Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that if a person, belonging to Scheduled Tribe of other State, seeks employment on the basis of advertisement in another State, he cannot be denied the benefit of reservation. Though the position of law has since been crystallized by judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjana Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand and others: (2019) 15 SCC 664.
However, the issue before this Court is whether the State/ respondents, after 30 years of according appointment to the respondent, wherein, there has been no suppression worth the name, have any justification for putting an end to the appointment/employment on the ground that he was initially ineligible/lacked the qualification pertaining to his caste.
In the case of Md Zamil Ahmed Vs State of Bihar (supra), the Supreme Court, on coming to the conclusion that it was a conscious decision taken by the State for giving appointment and therefore, there was no justification on the part of the State to wake up after lapse of 15 years and terminate the services on the ground of qualification.
“In the case, the respondent had worked for 30 years and had an unblemished career and therefore, in the light of the said judgments, for the alleged ineligibility, that also in a case where the legal position at the relevant time was uncertain, cannot be sustained.
Insofar as, the judgment, in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (supra) cited by counsel for the appellant is concerned, the said case pertains to the candidates, who had obtained certificates of belonging to reserved category, though they did not belong to such category. Present is not a case, wherein, the respondent, at any stage, has made any kind of misrepresentation and therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case.
In view of the above discussions, the judgment passed by the Single Judge, does not call for any interference”, the Court further observed while dismissing the appeal.