CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7491 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.03.2011 **** Tarawati . . . . Petitioner VS. Home Secretary UT Chd. & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chd. ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as a Room Attendant on 25.10.1977 followed by her subsequent appointment as a Linen Keeper vide appointment letter dated 19.01.1990 on the basis of the academic qualification of “Prathama” passed by her from the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad which was presumed equivalent to Matriculation standard. (2). The genuineness and equivalence of the above-stated qualification was got verified by the respondent- Corporation firstly in the year 2001, again in 2007 and CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 2 – then in 2008 and no objection whatsoever was ever received from any quarter. The petitioner was thereafter re-designated as Senior Linen Keeper on 1st December, 2008 (Annexure P14). (3). The respondent-Corporation sent yet another communication dated 26.06.2009 (Annexure P15) to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad (UP) to send a specific report with regard to the ‘equivalence’ of the academic qualification possessed by the petitioner. The Board in response thereto, observed that the “Prathama” qualification was never equivalent to High School Education in U.P. (4). On the basis of the above-stated communication, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.07.2009 (Annexure P16) alleging that she secured employment on the basis of fictitious qualification. (5). A regular enquiry was conducted and based upon its findings, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P24). The petitioner went in departmental appeal but the same has also been turned down vide CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 3 – order dated 08/17.03.2010 (Annexure P25 & P26) passed by respondent No.1. (6). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (7). The following two questions do arise for consideration before this Court:- 1. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the nature of charges leveled/proved against her? 2. Whether the qualification of “Prathama” possessed by the petitioner is actually not equivalent to Matriculation for the purposes of public employment? (8). Adverting to first question, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner had joined the Corporation as a Room Attendant on 25.10.1977 and rose to different ranks based upon her satisfactory service record. There were no allegations of embezzlement, misappropriation of public funds and/or committing gross misconduct of such a magnitude that her retention in service would be at the risk and peril of ‘public interest’. The petitioner relied upon the “Prathama” examination which she had CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 4 – admittedly passed from the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad which is a well recognized Institute. Assuming that the said qualification is not equivalent to Matriculation standard though thrice verified and proved otherwise, yet it cannot be termed as the grossest misconduct that may warrant her dismissal from service. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly disproportionate and pricks the conscious of the court, which in fact prompted a Co-ordinate Bench to stay the dismissal order while calling upon the respondents. The respondents after a hearing were accordingly directed to comply with the said interim order and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has now been re-instated with all consequential benefits. (9). The questions as to whether the qualification of “Prathama” possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to Matriculation or not finds complete answer in the Government of India Notification dated 26.07.2001 (Annexure P27) which reads as follows:- “Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Secondary & Higher Education) New Delhi, the 27th July, 2001 NOTIFICATION CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 5 – No.F.24-4/2001-TS III. On the recommendation of the High Level Committee for recognition of Educational Qualification, the Government of India have decided to recognized the Prathama Examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in matriculation. The recognition is provisional for a period of 3 years after which the committee will review the recognition granted.” (Emphasis applied) (10). Thereafter again the Government of India has issued a Notification dated 21.11.2006 to the following effect:- “No.F.24-4/2001-TS III. In continuation of this Notification of even number dated 14.5.2004, the Government of India, on the recommendations of High Level Committee in its meeting held on 16.10.2006, has decided to extend the provisional recognition granted to the Prathama Examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitaya Sammelen, Allahabad for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 6 – matriculation for a further period of 3 years from 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2010, after which the Committee will review the recognition granted.” (Emphasis applied) (11). It would, thus, be seen that the “Prathama” Examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad has been recognized equivalent to Matriculation qualification by the Government of India for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. The Chandigarh Administration is an extended hand of the Central Government and so is its respondent- Corporation. No contrary Notification/Policy decision issued by the Government of India or any other recognized body ‘de-recognising’ the qualification of Prathma or its not being equivalent to matriculation has been produced by the respondents. The petitioner’s contention that the “Prathama” qualification possessed by her is equivalent to the Matriculation for the purpose of employment in the respondent-Corporation, thus, carries weight and completely brushed aside the baseless allegation of ‘fictitious qualification’. CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 7 – (12). The Corporation has relied upon a letter dated 26.06.2009 (Annexure P15) sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad (UP) for wholly misconceived reasons. I say so firstly for the reason that the said Board is not the ‘Authority’ competent to recognize the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad as a Deemed University under the Central Act. Secondly, once the “Prathama” qualification stands recognized equivalent to Matriculation by the Government of India, any contrary decision taken by the State Education Board/Authority is wholly inconsequential. (13). It, thus, appears that the petitioner has been cornered for totally false reasons and no disciplinary and/or imposition of a drastic punishment like dismissal from service was ever called for. (14). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned dismissal/appellate orders are quashed. Since the petitioner has already been re-instated in service, no further direction in this regard need to be issued except that she will be granted all the consequential benefits forthwith. However, the respondent-Corporation shall still be at liberty to re- CWP No.7491 of 2010.doc - 8 – verify the Notifications issued by Government of India referred to above and if there is any Notification contrary to those relied upon by the petitioner, the Corporation shall be at liberty to revive the disciplinary proceedings for the purposes of imposing a minor punishment only. (15). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 07.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge