V.K.SHUKLA, MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ. - (1.) Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants; Shri Anant Tiwari for first respondent and Shri Vivek Ratan Agarwal for the respondent-bank.
(2.) Present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 9.3.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11071 of 2017 (Shivangi Singh and 3 others v. Union of India and 3 others).
(3.) The record in question reflects that an advertisement dated 24.6.2013 was issued for recruitment to the post of House Keeper-cum-peon in Union Bank of India. The qualification prescribed for such post was 10th pass. In the same advertisement, a clause was also inserted that the candidates should not possess qualification higher than 10th pass. The petitioners-appellants filed a declaration to the effect that they were only High School passed and were not Intermediate. First and second petitioners applied under general category while third and fourth petitioners applied under OBC category. It is admitted fact that they all participated in the examination and finally the appointment letter had also been issued to them on 8.10.2013. Upon completion of the probation period all the petitioners were confirmed. It transpires that show cause notices were issued to them levelling allegations to the effect that they all had suppressed the educational qualification despite the fact that requirement for the post of house keeper-cum-peon was only High School. All the petitioners had submitted their response. Finally on 5.8.2016 the charge sheet were issued to the petitioners and as per the charge sheet this much is clearly reflected that the charges were levelled against the petitioners to the effect that they all had suppressed the fact of being over qualified in obtaining appointment in the respondent bank. In reply thereto the petitioners had taken a stand that there was no intention to mislead the respondent bank. Finally memorandum dated 22.8.2016 were issued to the petitioners directing them to appear before the enquiry officer. After completion of the enquiry, finally the competent authority vide order dated 31.1.2017 had terminated the services of the petitioners holding that they all had proceeded to submit false affidavit and they had deliberately misled the bank that they were not having higher qualification than the prescribed qualification i.e. 10th pass. The said termination order was subjected to challenge in the aforesaid writ petition and finally the learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of the petitioners-appellants vide impugned order, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:- "Sri Khare further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein it has been held that mere suppression of information should not be the sole basis for non-suiting the person if a suppression of information otherwise does not constitute moral turpitude. He also submits that giving of false affidavit would not in any manner affect their right or to continue in service, if the rule prescribes only minimum qualification and as per decision cited above, higher qualification than the prescribed qualification cannot be a crietera for nonsuiting a person. Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank submits that for the same selection, several writ petitions were filed, one such writ petition is in the case of Ritesh Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and another, reported in 2015 (147) FLR 184 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Circular presented in the Court in the case of Ritesh Kumar Mishra (supra) was a different Circular. The Circular that was presented before the Court was different and in that Circular qualification that was prescribed was High School alone and, therefore, the judgment based on such Circular would not be applicable in the present case as the Circular in the present case only prescribes the minimum qualification, i.e., High School. It is to be noted that the advertisement prescribes that the petitioners should not possess the qualification, which is more than High School. Knowing the aforesaid fact, the petitioners participated in the selection and thereafter had also given false affidavit. Now once upon an enquiry, it was found that the petitioners deliberately participated in the selection without challenging the same and without challenging the eligibility criteria and having once selected after giving false affidavit and on coming of this information into light, their services have been terminated. Similar view has been taken with regard to the same selection by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.145 of 2017 (Abhishek Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others) vide judgment and order dated 6.3.2017. Since the claim of the similarly situated persons appearing in the same test have already been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, in my view, the claim of the petitioners is also covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6.3.2017. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed." ;