LexLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS versus TRIVENI SHARAN MISHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 693 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS A v. TRIVENI SHARAN MISHRA (Civil Appeal No. 4335 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 2, 2014. B [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Setvice Law: Removal from service - On the ground that the C employee gave a false declaration of his educational qualifications at the time of his recruitment - Post of peon - Maximum qualification prescribed as IX pass - Respondent though pursuing his M.A. (previous) at. the time of recruitment, gave his educational qualification as XI- High Court directing D his reinstatement and to consider imposition of penalty as was done in the case of another similarly situated employee - Held: High Court has rightly taken note of the fact that another similarly situated candidate wa_s awarded punishment of two increments with cumulative effect, and E rightly directed the employer to consider imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of writ petitioner - Prescribing maximum educational qualification for the post of peon, disapproved - Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 14 and 16. The Senior Divisional Manager of the appellant-Life F Insurance Corporation invited applicati9ns for the post of Peon through Employment Exchange. As regards educational qualifications it was prescribed that a candidate should be IX pass and a candidate with more than 50% marks in XII or a graduate or a post-graduate . G would not be considered. The appellant, in his application, mentioned his qualification as Higher Secondary (Xlth old) and also made a declaration that he did not possess any higher qualification. However, 693 H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A after a couple of years of his appointment, it was found that he was a graduate and at the time he applied for the post he was pursuing M.A. (previous). As such, he was removed from the service. However, the High Court, on the writ petition filed by the respondent, found that the B . criterion that a candidate should not possess a higher qualification than IX standard was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and further that the punishment awarded to the respondent was discriminatory, as another similarly situated employee was inflicted with a c penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The High Court, therefore, directed the respondent to be reinstated and to consider to impose upon him the penalty similar to the other candidate. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD : 1.1- It is not disputed that the respondent was already graduate on the date he submitted his application for the post of Peon, and the declaration made by him at the time of seeking employment that he possessed. no other qualification was incorrect. E However, the High Court has rightly relied on the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. Riazu/ Usman Gani's case* wherein it has deprecated the criteria of maximum qualification for the post of peon. [Para 8 and 11] [700-D-E; 702"C-D] F *Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors. 2000 (1) SCR 771 : (2000) 2 sec 606 - relied on. Kera/a Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan G and Anr. (2006) 13 SCC 619 - distinguished. 1.2 For mentioning less qualification to secure the job, similarly situated another employee was let off by the appellant by awarding punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. The High H Court has rightly taken note of said fact while allowing LIFE INSURANCE.CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORSv. 695 TRIVENI SHARAN MISHRA the writ petition, and directing the employer to consider A the imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ petitioner. There is no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [Para 13-14][703-E-G] Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan and Ors v. Ram Ratan Yadav 2003 (2) SCR 361 : (2003) 3 SCC 437 - held inapplicable . . CASE LAW REFERENCE (2006) 13 sec 619 distinguished para 9 2000 (1) SCR 771 relied on para 11 2003 (2) SCR 361 . held inapplicable para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4335 of 2007. From the judgment and order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ .Petition No. 542 of 2004 (SY. B. B. Sawhney, Sr. Adv, and Ms. Indra Sawhney, Advs. B . c D for the Appellants. E Rajesh Singh, Adv. for the Respondent. The Judgment o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.