Pawar Subash v. 1. The Union of lndia

ORDER The present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of constitution of India assails the ordcr dated o4.og.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereafter'the Tribunal' for brevity) in o.A.No.o2L I 0o4Tg I 2022 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said o.A filed by the petitioner by confirming the order dated 30.O4.2022 passed by the respondentS, rejecting the peti l\ tloners claim for reinstatement to the post of Atten'dqnt/rr.(later re.-ctes*grrated as work Assistant/A) with h'j '. '.: effect from 27.05.2013. The'.petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to I ! a\ ..).. quash thc order of the Tribunal and a conseqLrential relief of reinstateme't with pay and allowa'ces, seniority ancl promotions from 27.Oi;.2Ot3 Factual matrix {in brief} 2' To appreciate the facts involved in the present Writ petition in a proper perspective, it is appcsite to enlist the chronologr of events. S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Date '2003 it006 Event Description Petitioner SSC passed Petitioncr passed Intermediate Respondents issued Advertisement No.NFC/o I /2o1o

26.C7.20to Application Submited by the petitioner submitted his Petitioner application for the post of Attenclant/A (Work Assistant/A) in response to the Advertisement No.NFC/O 7 l2OlO, declaring SSC qualification. Petitio.rer appeared for written examination. and Petitioner declared qualification as 'lntermediate discontinued, and that his qualification is 'only SSC'. submitted another Petitioner undertaking aflirming SSC as highest qualification. of Petitioner received ad tnc appointment. offer of

03.03.2013 Written

20.03.2013 Examination Interview Declaration

22.O4.20t3. Further Undertaking

24.O4.2013 Offer Appointment 3 9

21.o5.2013 Appointment order Formal appointment order issued to the petitioner with a warning suppression of facts would tead to termination. therein 10

25.05.2013 Disclosure 11

27.O5.20L3 Termination t2

28.Or.2022 CAT Order (First Round) 13

30.o4.2022 Order reconsideration

27.06.2022 Contempt Petition closed. 15

04.o9.2025 CAT Order (Second Round) 16 t8.Lr.2025 Writ Petition filed Petitioner declared that he had actually passed Intermediate in 2006. Services of the petitioner were terminated for suppression of factual information. CAT set aside termination in O.A.No. 1322 of 2015 and directed reconsideration. NFC (Employer) issued fresh speaking order rejecting petitioner's claim, citing repeated false declarations. CAT closed C.P.No.31 of 2022 noting compliance and granting liberty to challenge the new order. CAT dismissed o2rloo478l2022 termination for suppression. Petitioner filed present Writ Petition challenging Tribunal's order dated O4.O9.2025 in O.A.No.o2 | I OO47 B I 2022. O.A.No. upholding witlful i. As can be seen from the table above, the respondents issued Advertisement No.NFC/ oL l2olo (Ex.p7; page No.40) inviting applications for various posts including the post of Attendant/A (later re-designated as work Assistant/A) under category No.6. The prescribed qualification for the said post was "tenth pass (SSC)". rrf, .c& I ::4:: ii. The petitioner who had passed tenth class (ssc) in the year 2oo3 (Ex.P6; Page No.38) and Intermediate in the year 2006 (Er:.P6; Page No.39) applied for the said post on

26.07.2010. In his application, the petitioner declared his qualification as 'tenth pass (ssc)', even though the petitioner had already passed Intermediate in the year 2006. iii. Based on this declarartion, the petitioner was shortlisted and appeared for written examination on 03.03 .2013 with Roll.No.0i'727 (Ex.P8; Page No.45 and 46t. The petitioner subsequently attended an interview on 20.03.2013 and on the said date:, he declared his qualification as Tntermediate discontinued' uide declaration dated 20.o3.2o*8. The petitioner subsequently submitted another unclertaking on

22.O4.2O 13 affirming SSC as his highest qualification. iv. Basecl on this declaration, the petitioner was provisionally selected and issued an offer of appointment dated 24.04.2ot3 on an ad hoc basis (Ex.P10; Page No.50) was issued to the petitioner. v. The petitioner was issued a formal appointment order datecl 21.05.2013 (Ex.pl1; page No.S1) wherein it is e- specifically mentioned, that the offer of appointment for the post of work Assistant/A shall be inter a/ia subject to the following condition (iii) extracted as under: "iii) Your appotntment on regular basis will be subject to uerification of Character and Antecedents by the concerned" authorities. If any of the information fumished bA you is proued wrong, or if it is d:etected that you haue submitted false doatments or suppressed information, your seruices are liabte to be terminqted and action as deemed fit tuitt be initiated against gou". vi. On 25.05.2013, the petitioner submitted a declaration, disclosing that the petitioner had actually passed Intermediate examination in the year 2006. vii. Treating this as willful suppression of 'material information' at the stage of application and during subsequent verification process, the respondents terminated the ad hoc services of the petitioner uide order dated 27.05.2013 (Ex.p4; Page No.36) as per clause (iii) of the offer of appointment dated

21.05.201 3 extracted above. viii. The petitioner challenged the termination order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.O 2L / 1322 /2015. By order dated 28.01.2022 the Tribunal has set aside the termination order and remanded the matter, directing the respondents to t* <u ::6 reconsider the aspect of, ,keeping the petitioner in public employment, for which he is otherwise qualified, and to pass a speaking order. ix. The r:rder of rribunal dated 28.or.2022 was in the light of the judgrnent of Honble supreme conrt in pnn eet sharmd. and others a. stqte of Himachq.l pradeshr. The responctents upon reconsideration of the matter, passed a detaileci speaking order dated 3o.o4.2o22 (Ex.P3; page No.33 to 3s) that the petitioner was unsuitable for pr-rblic employment, reiterating that the petitioner has deliberately and repeatedly suppressed his higher qualification in the application form, undertaking and decltrration. The respondents concluded that the act of suppression clearly exhibited lack of integrity of the petitioner which makes the petitioner unsuitable for public employment and reject-ed the claim of the petitioner. x. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated

30.04.20t|2 passed by respondents in fresh o.A.No.021/ OO47 8 l 2Ct22. The Tribunal, after a detailed examination, dismissed the said o.A uide irnpugned order dated 04.og.2o2s 1 (2021 )16 SCC 34 e? i 7 (Ex.Pl; Page Nos.14 to 231. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the respondents which held that the petitioner's suppression was intentional and deliberate. It also noted that the respondents had screened out several other candidates, who were possessing higher qualifications; and that granting any special consideration to the petitioner would be unjustified, particularly since he had attempted to secure his appointment on the basis of a false declaration. Further, it would be highly discriminatory to those candidates who were eliminated merely on account of possessing higher qualification and making a truthful declaration.

3. Heard Sri Narsimulu Neeli, learned counsel representing Sri Mogili Anaveni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents and perused the record. on behalf

4. sri Narsimulu Neeli, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following submissions: i. That the prescribed qualification for the post of Work \s. Assistant/A was tenth pass (ssc), which the petitioner ::8:: possesserl. The suppression, if any, was not of a .material fact,. The possession of a higher quarification b5z the petitioner is not a disqualification, as herd by the Hon,bre Supreme court in the cases of Puneet sharma (supra 1) and A'tar singh a. tlnion of India and others2.

11. The termination of services of the petitioner on account of the petitioner possessing the Intermediate q*alification is shockingllr disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2l of Constitution of India. iii' The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and hails from a remote afea and did not possess the requisite awa-reness regarding procedural formalities. The subsequent clisclosure by the petitio.eer on 25.05 .2o13 of having passed Intermediate was voluntary and demonstrated the petitioner,s bona fid.es and, there was .no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner. iv. The respondents while passing the order dated 3o.o4.2o2rl failed to genuinely reconsider the matter in the spirit of the Tribunal's remand order dated 28.01.2022 and the 2 (2OL6) 8 SCC 471 ..O.. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of. h,tneet Sharma (supra 1) and Autar Singh (supra 2). V The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following Judgments which were also relied Ltpon by the petitioner in the O.A. as under a) Mary Soi Kutnari a. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Vijagawada qnd others3 wherein High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 'higher education is not disqualification for applying to a post. b) W.P.No.SO8SO of 2OO3 (S-CAT) and Chief Administratiae Officer, BARC, Mysore and others u; G.Maruthi in W.P.No.20328 of 2OO4 (S-CAT) of High Court of Karnataka. c) Life Insurance Corporation of Indta and others a. Triaenl Sho;ran Mishra (Civil Appeal No.2334 of 2OO7l and Autar Singh (supra 2), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished the misconduct relating to suppression of material information from non-disclosure of higher qualification. vi. Learned counsel also contended that the non-disclosure of higher qualification is a completely different aspect from suppression of material information. 3 rg9+ (3) ALr 3so ti. t* ::10:: vii- Learned counser for the petitioner contend.ed that the order of the Tribunar was passed in a mechanicar manner without properly appreciating the facts; and r.vithout properl5r applying the correct legal principles. The irnpugned order was passed on a misapprication of raw without properly appreciating the earlier order of the co-ordinate Bench in o.A.No. tg32 of 2015.

5. Lea'red Deputy Soricitor General of India supported the impugned order of the Tribunar dated 04 .og.2o2s with the following submissions : i' The suppression by the petitioner was not a one-time omission; it is wilful and repeated. The petitioner had declared that he had onry passed tenth crass (ssc) in his apprication dated 26.0r -2oro; repeated it in the decraration dated 2o-o3.2o13; and gave an undertaking dated 22.04.2013 to that effect. ii. It is contended that the said conduct of the petitioner established a consistent pattern of wiiful misrepresentation of 'materiar facts'. That ttr" ,.[ia"rrt" had the right to restrict :: l1:: candidates based on qualifications, higher than the minimLlm, due to overwhelming number of applications received, which the respondents did. iii. It is also contended that approximatgly 45o/o (about 14,000) of the candidates with higher qualifications were screened out. However, the petitioner by suppressing his possession of higher qualification bypassed the legitimate screening/filter and gained an unfair advantage on account of wilful and deliberate misrepresentation. The learned counsel further contended that the fact of possessing a higher qualification was material to the process of selection. iv. The iearned Deputy Solicitor General of India contended that public employment demands utmost integrity right from the outset. It is contended that the petitioner's conduct in knowingly furnishing incorrect information repeatedly on multiple occasions, clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, which is a valid ground to deny employment of the petitioner. v. The learned counsel argued that the judgments in the cases of Puneet sholr-ma (supra 1) and Autar singh (supra 2) cl +:r. ::12:: are distinguishable. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the Judgment in Autqr singh a. trnion of India ona others (supra 2) which is as under: "27'. suppressfon of 'rnate'ria| information pr-esupposes that tah'zt is suppressed thctt 'matters' not euery iechnicar or triuial matter, The emproyer has to act ott d"ue consid.eration of rules/ instntctions if ang in exercise of potuers in ord.er to cancel co"ndidature or for termtnatiig the seruices of emtrtlogee. Though a" person who has the materiit infc'rmation cannot craim unfettered. agru hr appointment or conti.nuitg in seruice but he has a dgit iot to be d,eart with arbi.trarilg and exercise of the pouter-has to be tn reasonable manTner with objectiuitg hauing due regard to facts of cases.,, "uppr"""ud" vi. Learned counsel contended that the case of htneet sharma (supra 1) was rendered in the background of facts, rvhere the higher qualification was disclosed later, and where higher qualification was not used as a filter in the recruitment process, unlike in the present case. vii. The learned counser further contended that the principle laid dowrr in the case of Autar singh (supra 2) that, suppression must be "material information,, is fulfilled in the present ca.se inasmuch as the respondents clearly stated that the policy of screening was based on higher qualification to manage the volume of applications. Learned counsel asserted that the :information suppressed in the present case was unequivocally material, and as such, the exception provided in 13: Autqr singh (supra 2l would not advance the case of the petitioner. viii. It is also contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity and the order dated 30.04.2022 1s a detailed, well reasoned and a speaking order, fully complying with the Tribunal's direction to reconsider the matter and pass a speaking order; and that the petitioner was not dealt with arbitrary. tt is further contended that the order dated 30.o4.2022 was a reasonable and objective order, fully compliant with the principles of natural justice. Analvsis a reasontng

6. We have carefully considered the pleadings, material on record, the order of the Tribunal and respective submissions on behalf of both the parties.

7. The core question involved in the present writ petition is whether the non-disclosure by the petitioner of his Intermediate qualification, when the advertised post required only tenth pass (ssc), constitutes suppression of 'material information' warranting termination of his ad" hoc appointment and. rejection of his candidature? ::14::

8. It is trite law that every suppression is not fatal; suppression must be of a 'material fact,; the test of what constitutes a 'material fact' is context specific. The advertisement contains a crucial note pertaining to the posts in category-Ci, which is extracted hereunder: Note: The p'rsssribed educationctr quatifi.cations are minimum and. possession of the same does not entitle cand.idates to :nere be- called for utritten examination/ interuieut. whtere number of applications receiued in response to the aduertisement is large and it will not be conuenient orpossfbre to hold. written examtnation/ interuieut for att of them, NFC reserues the right to restrtct th-e number of iandid.ates to a reasonabre limit <>n the basis of marks and. experience higher thin the minin,,um prescribed in the ad.uertisLment. The respondents reserved to themselves the right to r:estrict the number of candidates on the basis of marks ancl experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement.

9. The respondents have placed on record that due to a large volume of applications, the respondents exercised the right to restrict the number of candidates on the basis of higher qualification and screened out approximately 4so/o (about 14,000) candidates who possessed qualification above ssc. This was a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion, to ensure a manageable selection process. ::15:: 1o. In view of the above, the petitioner,s Intermed.iate qualification was not irrelevant. It was a specific criteria that would have and in case of 45oh of applications, did lead to the application being screened out at the initial stage itself. Further, by declaring that the petitioner only possessed ssc qualification, the petitioner circumvented the screening process. The petitioner secured a place in the written examination and the subsequent process, which he might not have secured in the event of his having made a truthful declaration of possessing [ntermediate qualification. This gave petitione unfair advantage over other candidates, who truthfully declared their higher qualification and were consequently excluded. If the said conduct of the petitioner were to be ignored, it would tantamount to placing a premium on an illegal act.

11. In matters of public employment, the process must be fair, transparent and equitable to all candidates. The candidate who gains access through suppression or misrepresentation taints the entire process. The suppression in the case of the petitioner was not about the eligibility. Infact, the petitioner was eligible in view of his possessing tenth pass (ssc), but about d? I ::16:: the process of selection where. other candidates were screened out on account of possessing the higher qualification of Intermediate. In ttris context, petitioner's suppression of fact that he possessed the Interrhediate qualification assumes significance as a 'material fact'. L2. The petitioner's conduct of suppression/ misrepres(3ntation was not a single, inadvertent error. It was a sustained course of conduct over three years. The petitioner initially, ',vhile submitting his application for the post of Attendant,/A (work Assistant/A) declared only ssc as his qualification; the petitioner subsequently at the time of interview on 2o.o3.2o13 declared that his qualification was Intermediette discontinued; Even in the undertaking dated 22.04.2or.3 the petitioner declared ssc as his highest qualification. This repeated affirmation of falsehood, despite clear warnings in the notification and the forms, about the consequences of suppression, cannot be considered as innocence or lack of awareness. It d.emonstrates a deliberate attempt to conceal information, which would have been detrimental to his chances of getting employment. ::17::

13. A voluntary disclosure of the petitioner on 2s.0s.2013 after }ais ad hoc appointment and likely upon realizing that the verification would exposes the truth, cannot obliterate the previous deliberate and wilful misrepresentation/suppression. L4. The precedents relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are clearly distinguishable. The Honble supreme court has held that a higher qualification cannot be detrimental. However, the Honble Srtrpreme Court in htneet Shartncl (supra 1) was not dealing with a scenario where the employer explicitly used the higher quflification as a filter for shortlisting, due to the excessive ber of applications. In this regard, the ratio of htneet factual

15. The (supra 2l Honble examtne (supra 1) is not applicable to the different of the present case. onble Supreme Court in the case of Autqr Singh that not every suppression is material. The Court also held that the employer must facts of each case and take a reasonable and objective cision, rather than acting arbitrarily, in cancelling or terminating service. The respondents, in the present have done precisely that, in their speaking order, as to why suppression was 'material'in the present ::18:: recruitment process, in the facts and circumstances of the present c;?-se. Further, the ratio of Autar singh(supra 2) does not manclate reinstatement ignoring suppression of material facts, it mandates a reasoned consideration, which in trre present case, has been provided. The Juclgnrent in the case of Mary s,, Kumari (supra 3) rvhile raying down the proposition that higher qualification is not a bar, does not and cannot provide license to the candidates who wilfulry misrepresented their educationar profile during the selection process to continue in employment.

16. The 'lribunal, in our view, rightly upherd the termination noting that allowing the petitioner to continue in emproyment notwithstanding the wilfur suppression of higher quatification would be cliscriminatory agailst those who w.ere screened out on account of possessing the higher qualification.

17. It is also pertinent to note trrat integrity is of paramount importance in matters of pubric emproyment. The person who begins his association with the emproyer through repeated misrepresentations demonstrates a rack of necessary probity for public employment. .\r. t9::

18. The petitioner's punishment of termination of ad hoc service and cancellation of candidature, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not disproportionate. It is a direct consequence of the condition stipulated in the appointment letter, which the petitioner accepted. The punishment imposed, in our view, upholds the sanctity of the a recruitment process.

19. In view of the above mentioned consideration, we find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal conducted a proper and thorough analysis; correctly applied the law to the facts and arrived at a conclusion that is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The finding that there was suppression of material fact by the petitioner and that it was intentional is based on evidence, with which we find no reason to interfere, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 2C,. In view of the above discussion and for thg foregoing reasons, we hold that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. f ::20:.: 2r. Accordingly, the writ petitio, is d.ismissed., Trrgre shail be no order ers to costs. As il. sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if &fly, stand closed. SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER lMOGlLl ANAVENI ,Advocate [OPUC] N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor Generalof lndia To,

1. One CC tc SRI 2. One CC tc SRl. 3. Two CD Copies IoPUCI BM LS f,.- ': HIGH COURT DATED i2711112025 ': tt; :i i,r, ,.r't' l.i ,i s ffifl fiIfi !! - -':.. ,;/ ;l' t ,'l ,- i \-.r ORDER WP.No.35191 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f) .eIt^ #,