Background Facts

The post of ETT Teacher was advertised by the respondent State with certain eligibility conditions that were required to be fulfilled. The employee showed her eligibility on the basis of a 02-year Diploma in Elementary Education from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad. She was selected and joined on 29.12.2006. Later, it came to the knowledge of the employer (State of Punjab) that the qualification on the basis of which the employee claimed eligibility was forged. The institute from where the qualification was obtained, was not even in existence.

After conducting an inquiry, chargesheet was served to the employee. The allegation was proved that the essential qualification, which was required to be eligible for competing for the post of ETT Teacher, i.e. 02-year Diploma in Elementary Education, was forged. It was obtained from an institute which never existed. During the proceedings due opportunity was given to the employee to defend herself. An order was passed by the Department removing her from service.

The order was challenged by the employee by filing CWP. However, the petition was dismissed by Single Judge. It was held that the Diploma on the basis of which the employee competed was fake, as the institute from which the Diploma is stated to have been obtained was never in existence.

Aggrieved by the same. the employee filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

It was argued by the employee that once there is 14 years of service and the Diploma was obtained by the employee was through a genuine process, then merely because the institute did not exist, it will not render the appointment illegal. Therefore, the benefit of continuous service should have been given to the employee so as to allow her to continue in service till the age of superannuation.

It was further argued that after the termination of the services, the appellant again got admission to the B.Ed. Degree course and got B.Ed. Degree. It should be treated as a valid qualification to validate her appointment, so as to allow the employee to continue in service.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State that the case was covered by the decision in Tejinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and ors, wherein the qualification obtained from the same institute was considered and the dismissal from service was upheld.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the institution from which the essential qualification are needed does not exist. Therefore, how could a Diploma be issued by such an institute, which was used by the employee not only to gain eligibility to compete for the post but also to get selected.

The judgment in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India versus Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and ors was relied upon wherein it was held that any public appointment gained on the basis of fake documents cannot be allowed to continue merely on the ground that such illegal appointment continued for a period of 14 years.

It was further observed that if an employee obtained a degree from an institute that existed but was not recognised, they may be given chance to obtain the required qualification. However, if the degree was obtained from an institute that never existed and the qualification is fake, then the employee should not be given such an opportunity because they obtained the job by fraud. Further that the employee had taken away the seat of an eligible candidate.

It was held by the Division Bench that once an appointment was made on the basis of a fake Degree, the consequences have to be suffered irrespective of the length of service. It was further held that showing compassion to an ineligible candidate competing on the basis of a fake degree will be at the cost of an eligible candidate, who has been ousted by the employee from being selected and has never been able to get an appointment, as the appellant was preferred on the basis of a fake degree.

It was further observed by the court that the employee has also obtained the B.Ed Degree from a recognised institution. It was held that any person who does not gain eligibility upto the last date of application form though get the same before the completion of the selection process, is not considered eligible for the post.

With the aforesaid observations, the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Counsel for the Appellant : Krishan Singh Dadwal

Counsel for the Respondent : Swapan Shorey, DAG Punjab