'Husband's Avocation Has No Relevance To Candidate's Merit': Karnataka High Court Quashes Typist's Termination Order

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the termination order issued to a typist working at the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class court, Davanagere for allegedly giving incorrect details about her husband's avocation during the selection process.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be reinstated to the post forthwith and be permitted to discharge her services as a Typist.

The bench said “The avocation of the petitioner's husband would really have no relevance for comparing the relevant merit of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner possessed the necessary merit and secured the post of Typist on the basis of her own merit and appointment was obviously not given to her on the basis of her husband's avocation.”

The petitioner had applied for the job of a typist pursuant to a notification. The application required the applicants to state their marital status and accordingly, the petitioner stated that she was married.

The petitioner submitted that she was found eligible on merit and appointed under the notification dated 21.12.2022. Since the petitioner claimed the appointment under the reserved category, her caste certificate was sent to the Caste Verification Committee for examination and subsequently confirmed as genuine.

The petitioner submitted that even though she stated that her husband was working at the public prosecutor's office at Shivamogga while seeking a transfer, the Principal District and Sessions Judge was of the view that during the interview, the petitioner had made a statement that her husband was a vegetable vendor and had therefore furnished false information.

However, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that she had informed the Principal District and Sessions Judge that her husband was working in the Public Prosecutor's office and that her parents were vegetable vendors.

In its order, the Judge found the petitioner guilty of misconduct for suppressing material information during the interview regarding the occupation of her husband, and therefore she did not deserve to continue as a Typist.

The bench went through the records and found the impugned order unsustainable. It said: What exactly transpired in the interview is not a matter of record and hence, the personal information that the Principal District and Sessions Judge claims to have had cannot be accepted on its face value in order to establish that the petitioner had made a false statement during the interview, especially when the petitioner denied this assertion that she had informed the Principal District and Sessions Judge that her husband was working as a vegetable vendor.”

Noting that the application which was submitted when applying for the post of a Typist did not require the petitioner to state the avocation of her husband, the Bench opined “The avocation of an applicant's husband cannot be a qualification or a disqualification for being appointed as a Typist.”

It was found that the petitioner had verified her personal information with the Caste Verification Committee, which confirmed that her husband was working as a First Division Assistant in the Government and hence the trial courts reasoning was rejected.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Appearance: Advocate Manjunath Rao Bhonsle for Petitioner

Advocate Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda for Respondent.

Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 472

Case Title: Anitha H And Principal District and Session Judge

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12609 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order