JAMEELA, JISHA P., SABNA, RIYASMON, and SURESHBABU v. STATION HEAD LIVESTOCK RESEARCH STATION, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD; THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERUMAKKARA; KERALA VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY represented by REGISTRAR; ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R4 TO R10 IMPLEADED

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** ## **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 28951 of 2016 (T)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------** **1. JAMEELA AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.MOIDEEN, VALAPPIL HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD.** **2. JISHA P. AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.KUNJUKUTTAN, POOTHAKATTIL HOUSE, BHEEMANAD P.O, PALAKKAD.** **3. SABNA AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.SHAFEEQ, PARAKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU PO, PALAKKAD DIST.** **4. RIYASMON AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.USMAN, KOOMANCHERY HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU PO, PALAKKAD DIST.** **5. SURESHBABU, S/O.KALIYAPPAN MADAMPARA HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DIST.** ## **BY ADVS.SMT.P.R.REENA SMT.SURYA BINOY** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-----------------------------** **1. THE STATION HEAD LIVESTOCK RESEARCH STATION, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 601.** **2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERUMAKKARA GB ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** ## **WP(C).No. 28951 of 2016 (T)** **3. KERALA VETERINARY & ANIMALSCIENCE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 601.** **Addl. 4. ASHARAF .T S/O HAMZA,RESIDING AT THAYYIL HOUSE, AMBALAPPARA, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKKAD-678601.** **Addl. 5. FIROZ, S/O KUNZHHAYAMMU, RESIDING AT KARAKKAD HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKKAD-678601.** **Addl. 6. UMMER C.T S/O MOIDUTTY, RESIDING AT CHERETHODY HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKKAD-678601.** **Addl. 7. PRAKASH .N S/O KUMARAN RESIDING AT NEDUVANCHEERI HOUSE, KACHERIPARAMBU P.O., PALAKKAD-678601.** **Addl. 8. SUNITHA K.V W/O DEVAPRAKASH RESIDING AT MANGALASSERI HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR [VIA], PALAKKAD-678601.** **Addl. 9. ZEENATH.C W/O MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, RESIDING AT PADINJARAN HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR [VIA], PALAKKAD-678601.** **Addl. 10. ZEENATH.P W/O ALI C.K, RESIDING AT CHEMBANKUNNATH HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR [VIA], PALAKKAD-678601.** **ADDITIONAL R4 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADD AS PER ORDER DATED 6.10.2016 IN IA.NO.15161/2016.** **BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,K.V & A.S. UTY BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD BY ADV. SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 31038/2017, THE COURT ON 19.12.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 28951 of 2016 (T)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2016 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT-P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2016 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT.P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2016 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2016 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM ALSO SHOWING ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 31.10.2014** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.06.2016 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 DATED 04.06.2016** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.06.2016** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.07.2016** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE STATION HEAD** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC 20260/2016 DATED 19.08.2016** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.12.2011 ALLOWING THE QUOTATION FOR CONTRACTUAL LABOUR IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2012 TO 31.12.2012** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2010** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RAJAGOPAL DATED 05.06.2016** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY CELEENA DATED 05.06.2016** **WP(C).No. 28951 of 2016 (T)** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BYTHE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2011** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT AS CASUAL LABOURER RECEIVED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------------** **EXT.R4(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESP[ONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATD 26.8.2016.** **EXT.R4(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED-NIL.** **EXT.R4(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 31.3.2014.** **EXT.R4(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2016.** **R.AV** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.28951 of 2016 & 31038 of 2017** ## **Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **W.P.(C) No.28951 of 2016** Petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 series of orders by which they were removed from the list of casual labourers. 2. The 3[rd] respondent - Kerala Veterinary & Animal Science University - (hereinafter referred to as “the University” for short) issued a notification dated 02.04.2013 inviting applications for selection for appointment of casual labourers for its farm at Thiruvizhamkunnu. Petitioners submitted applications pursuant to it and they were selected and appointed as casual labourers. Petitioners claim that they had been working on contract/daily wage basis prior to their appointment as casual labourers. 3. While petitioners were continuing as casual labourers on the basis of the appointment, the first respondent-the Station Head issued Ext.P4 show cause notice to them on 2.6.2016, stating that the Registrar of the University had, on the basis of the recommendation of the Vigilance Department, directed to remove the petitioners from the list of casual labourers of that station, after issuing them show cause W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** notices, on the ground that they were having higher qualification at the time of their selection. They were therefore directed to show cause, if any, against the finding as to their higher qualification on or before 16.6.2016, failing which their names would be removed. Petitioners submit that the vigilance report, on the basis of which action was initiated, was not given to them. 4. Thereupon petitioners submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Vigilance Department pointing out that as per the notification issued by the University on 24.4.2013, even though it was stipulated that the candidates should not have passed SSLC, as per clause 1 of the appendix exemption was granted to those who were working on daily wages or on contract basis upto 31.3.2011. They stated that they were working as contract labourers from 2010 onwards and therefore they were entitled to exemption from educational qualification. It was also pointed out that the Head of the Research Station had issued certificate to them for the year 2011-12. However no certificate was issued for the year 2010. They requested to consider the actual facts arising in the case and to inform the same to Government and University. 5. They submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Station Head also stating that they were eligible for exemption. Though it was true that they had passed +2 course, applications were submitted under W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the bonafide belief that they were eligible for exemption. Pointing out that they have been working from April 2014 onwards, they requested to drop further proceedings. It was also pointed out that they had requested the Vigilance Department to conduct an enquiry into this and that in case a detailed enquiry was conducted it would come to light that they were working in that farm from 2010 onwards on contract basis under Smt.Celeena and Smt.Fathima, who were given the contract. 6. However Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued thereafter on 14.7.2016, as their explanations were not satisfactory and again they were asked to submit explanation, if any, against the proposed removal from service for having higher qualification. They submitted Ext.P8 and similar representations requesting to take a lenient view. In the meanwhile they had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20260 of 2016. 7. However after considering those representations Ext.P1 series of orders were issued. Petitioners are continuing on the basis of the interim orders of stay of operation of the orders issued on 31.8.2016. Show cause notices to the petitioners were issued on the basis of the direction from the Government based on the quick verification report. Petitioners submit that the Station Head, who issued the certificates of experience, was not maintaining any official records relating to the W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** workers engaged on contract, on specific direction from the University and there was no practice of issuing certificate of experience. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had confirmed that fact in Ext.P3 quick verification report dated 31.10.2014. 8. In the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 3 - University- it is stated that one Sri.P.R.Suresh filed a complaint before the Vigilance and Corruption Bureau regarding the selection made for appointment to the post of casual labourers. A vigilance enquiry was conducted into the selection and a quick verification report was submitted to the Government recommending action for removal of the casual labourers having higher qualification. On the basis of the direction issued by Government University issued show cause notices. It is stated that the candidates possessing higher qualification are not eligible for appointment as casual labourers. The petitioners suppressed higher qualification in their application. They did not also claim relaxation furnishing any experience certificate. They submitted applications in the general category. All the petitioners submitted that their qualification is SSLC and they also affixed their signature in the affidavit submitted before the University that in case the details given by them are not true their application would be rejected. It is stated that the quick verification report of the Vigilance Department did not find any procedural irregularity in the recruitment process. The W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :5: selection team had obtained affidavit from the selected candidates by which they agreed for the action in case they are having higher qualification. It is stated that petitioners did not claim experience either in the application or thereafter and they submitted an agreement (sammathapathram) at the time of appointment stating that they have not acquired any qualification higher than SSLC and in case it was found contrary they are ready to accept the consequences of suppressing the same. The Vigilance Department found that the petitioners are having higher qualification than what they stated in their application. Therefore it was stated that the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated for wilful suppression of facts and for obtaining appointment by fraudulent means. It is also stated that the selection and appointment of petitioners 4 and 5 are challenged in W.P.(C) No.6585 of 2014 and in some other cases. Respondents pointed out that several candidates have approached this Court in several writ petitions seeking exemption from age limit, issuance of experience certificate etc. and this Court had issued directions to the 1[st] respondent to consider the available documents with respect to the engagement of contract laborers and to certify as to whether the petitioners were eligible for inclusion in the causal labour roll by exemption from upper age limit, educational qualification etc. Despite all these none of the petitioners had approached this W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Court claiming any relaxation or exemption. It is stated that Government had as per letter No.e-193/AHF2/16/ad dated 2.5.2016 forwarded a copy of the letter from the Vigilance Department addressed to the Agriculture Department directing to take action on the recommendation of the Vigilance Department. Accordingly Government directed the University to take action against the petitioners. Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued to the petitioners pursuant to that direction. It is pointed out that the Vigilance Department had found that the selection committee did not have any previous knowledge regarding the higher qualification possessed by the petitioners. It is further stated that the experience certificate produced by them was one issued on 31.3.2014 by the Station Head, which is for a period subsequent to their selection. The representation submitted by petitioners were therefore rejected. Regarding the experience certificates and the claim of the petitioners regarding the records relating to engagement, it is stated that laborers were engaged through labour contract every year. The contractors had not submitted the names and addresses of labourers engaged by them while claiming the wages due to them. Therefore there is no proof relating to the alleged engagement of the petitioners. It is pointed out that exemption is available only for those who worked upto 31.3.2011 that too on production of valid certificates. According to the W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** respondents the orders of removal issued on the basis of the quick verification report after conducting enquiry by the Vigilance Department and after issuing show case notices are perfectly in order after coming to the conclusion that the petitioners suppressed the material facts with respect to their higher qualification and therefore the orders of termination are not liable to be interfered with. 9. The 2[nd] respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to this counter affidavit, the quick verification was conducted on the basis of orders in Crl.M.P.No.1036 of 2014 dated 25.6.2014 of the EC & SJ Court, Thrissur on a petition filed by one Sri.P.R.Suresh. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakkad assigned the work to the Inspector of Police and he enquired into the allegations regarding irregularities in the selection and appointment of casual laborers in the Live Stock Research Station, Thiruvizhamkunu. The allegations were raised against the selection board also in selecting over qualified candidates contrary to the notification. In the enquiry it was found that the criteria and guidelines for selection and appointment of casual laborers was finalized in the meeting of the board of management held on 9.12.2011. A decision to appoint casual laborers to various farms in the University was taken in the meeting held on 9.12.2011 and the criteria and guidelines for selection was finalised in the meeting on 17.4.2013 based on which a notification was issued on 24.4.2013 for W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :8: recruitment of casual labourers. Criteria No.3 was that educational qualification was fixed as pass in 4[th] Std. and upto a pass in 10[th] std. It was specified that persons with higher qualification will not be considered. Relaxation was available to those who were engaged in the farm on daily wages or through contract till 31.3.2011. Such persons were exempted from the initial screening test also but they have to produce the certificate from the head of the farm/station. The complaint was against 10 candidates alleging that they were over qualified. Out of these serial Nos.1 to 7 had passed +2. Serial No.8 was having residence beyond 5 km. Serial No. 9 was deaf and dumb and serial No.10 did not qualify skill test. In the enquiry it was found that 5 candidates, that is petitioners, had possessed qualification above 10[th] Std. It was also found that except Smt.Jisha.P all of them worked in the farm under a contractor before 2011. It was also found that the head of the station did not issue an experience certificate to them. It was only one Dr.Stephen Mathew, who issued certificate to the labourers. However it was for the period subsequent to the relevant period in question. Petitioners were working on daily wage basis at Thiruvizhamkunnu farm. Their initial appointment was through labour contract from year to year. Contract was given to labourers working in the Live Stock Research Station. It is stated that petitioners who were working on daily wages as well as on contract basis on the W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** strength of the labour contract were entitled to exemption from the stipulation regarding qualification. It was revealed that there was oral instruction from the University authorities to the Station Heads not to maintain any official records regarding the details of workers engaged under contractor and that was to avoid any claim from the persons in permanent vacancies arising in future and even genuine candidates who had experience in the farm station under contractors could not therefore obtain experience certificate. The verification report was submitted with the recommendation that University may take appropriate action against the petitioners for suppressing the higher qualification in their application form. It was also recommended that University may issue directions to the former heads of Live Stock Research Station, Thiruvizhamkunnu to issue experience certificate to eligible candidates and in case they are not eligible for relaxation, action may be taken to remove them from the select list. It was further recommended that the University may be advised to issue clear cut guidelines for fixing and proving conditions regarding the eligibility of candidates in future recruitment processes. 10. Additional respondents 4 to 10 got impleaded and filed counter affidavit. They are included at rank Nos.30, 31, 45 and 48 in the list of male workers and rank Nos.17, 18 and 20 in the list of female workers. According to them, petitioners who suppressed higher W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** qualification while submitting their applications and thereafter by submitting an affidavit at the time of their appointment are not eligible to continue in service and their names are to be removed from the list of casual labour rolls as there was clear mis representation as well as suppression which disables the petitioners from raising any claim. According to them in case the petitioners are removed, they will get a fair chance to get appointment. 11. I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. The learned Counsel for the additional respondents relying on the judgment of the apex court in _**State of Punjab vs. Shiv-Ram and others : (2005) 7 SCC 177**_ argued that the petitioners do not have any right to continue in service as they obtained employment after giving false information. In that the apex court considered the case of a candidate belonging to scheduled tribe who left the column to indicate his previous employment blank. In the notification calling for applications issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission which conducted the selection for appointment of Women and Child Welfare Officers from ST candidates, information was given to candidates that false information or suppression of material information would result in cancellation of candidature. Following the judgment in _**Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan V Ram Ratan Yadav**_ , the apex court found that the candidate who suppressed the factum of his employment as W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Teacher was not entitled to any relief, as he indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court and stated that University had not taken an independent decision in the matter and in the light of the quick verification report a lenient view is liable to be taken. In the judgment in _**Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat : 1995 (5) SCC 302 = 1995 KHC 474**_ relying on paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 it was pointed out that the University did not take a decision on its own and they were acting under dictation while issuing show cause notice and orders of termination. It is pointed out that 1[st] respondent is a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction to take a decision in respect of its employees and when that discretion is exercised in order to comply with the direction from some other authority it is a clear case of failure to exercise discretion. ## 13. In _**Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others : 2000 KHC 1000 = 2000**_ _**(2) SCC 606**_ the Apex Court held that the criteria which has the effect of denying the right to be considered for appointment to a post stipulating disqualification for having higher qualification was irrational. In _**Avtar Singh v. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471**_ the Apex Court was mainly considering the cases where the candidates W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** suppressed/did not disclose the criminal cases pending against them in the attestation forms. Even though most of the cases considered was with respect to the termination on verification of character and antecedence and related to suppression of pending/past criminal cases/arrest/detention, etc, it is relevant to note the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, to be observed before a decision of termination is taken. Relevant portions from paragraph 30 onwards of the judgment in _**Avtar Singh's**_ case (supra), are relevant in this context which read as follows : _30. The employer is given “discretion” to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be_ W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :13: ## _considered. xxxxx_ ## _xxxx._ _32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services._ _33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran case, it has also been observed in the reference order that if an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however, we add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of suppression or submission of false information._ _34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects._ _35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim_ W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :14: _unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases._ _36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects._ _37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service._ _38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:_ _xxxx_ _38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information._ _38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (emphasis supplied)_ 14. In the present case there was no forgery. But the petitioners furnished false information. It is for the University to consider independently whether the overall circumstances should result in removal or not in the circumstances revealed in the quick verification report. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in _**Life Insurance Corporation of**_ W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :15: ## _**India and others vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra : (2014) 10 SCC 346**_ also which is a similar case, where the candidates had suppressed the fact that they had passed 12[th] standard when the qualification stipulated was that the candidates should have passed only 9[th] standard. In that case the Apex Court found that similarly situated candidates were awarded a punishment of barring of increments. The Apex Court after referring to _**Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani'** s_ case where it had deprecated the stipulation of higher qualification as a disqualification, held as follows. _12. In our opinion, in the present case the High Court has rightly relied on the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur wherein it has deprecated the criterion of maximum qualification for the post of Peons. The relevant parts of paras 16 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: (SCC pp. 613 & 614)_ _“16. In the present case we find that the candidates with higher education than Standard VII were completely shut out for being considered for the posts of Peons. The Recruitment Rules also provide for promotion. ’_ _* * *_ _18. If the appointment of a candidate to the post of Peon is restricted to his having qualified up to Standard VII he will have no chance of promotion to the post of regional language section writer or clerk.”_ _13. However, on behalf of the appellants it is contended that suppression of material information and making false statement to secure the employment, is a serious offence to attract the dismissal of service. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants referred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav. But in our opinion, the aforesaid case referred to on behalf of the appellants cannot be applied to the present case for the reason that in the said case the employee had concealed the facts relating to his character and antecedents. In the said case, the employee who was selected for the post of a teacher suppressed the information that a criminal case_ W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _relating to the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 was registered against him. As such the facts in the present case cannot be equated with the case referred._ 16. The judgment of the high court was upheld directing the employer to consider imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the petitioner therein. Though it was a case where discrimination was revealed in dealing with the employees for the very same charge, the employer in that case decided to impose a lesser penalty. In this case the employer did not have an opportunity to take its own decision or to exercise its discretion because of the direction of Government. 17. As per the counter affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent, in the enquiry conducted by him leading to the quick verification report it was found that petitioners were working on daily wage basis at Thiruvizhamkunnu farm on their appointment through labour contract from year to year. It also states that labour contract was given to labourers working in the Live Stock Research Station itself. It is stated that petitioners who were working on daily wages as well as on contract basis on the strength of the labour contract were entitled to exemption from the stipulation regarding qualification. It is seen that the petitioners did not submit the correct factual position with respect to their qualification in the application form submitted prior to the selection process and affidavit submitted subsequent to the process of W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** selection. It is true that there is a provision in the notification which provides for exemption from having higher qualification on the condition that the candidates have to produce experience certificate. The 2[nd] respondent found that there were strict instructions to the University not to give certificates and that petitioners except one Smt.Jisha have worked prior to 2011 based on which they were eligible for exemption in case the certificate was issued. There is a finding that the petitioners have worked prior to 2011 but for the denial of certificate on the basis of the instructions issued by the University not to keep any records they could have claimed exemption. It is therefore necessary for the University to have a relook in the matter in the light of the findings in the report. It is seen that out of the eagerness of getting an employment they have concealed their higher qualification. 18. The judgment in _**Shiv Ram's**_ Case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent was in a case where the candidate was working as a teacher. The suppression was revealed even before he was given appointment. In the present case petitioners are casual labourers. The action is initiated against them after about 2-3 years of their appointment. The circumstances revealed in Ext.P3 report and the exemption available to them as per the notification would require re-consideration of their case, especially in the light of the _**Triveni**_ W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :18: ## _**Sharan Mishra's**_ case(supra). 19. Even though such suppression requires serious action, in the circumstances of the case, that may not result in the extreme penalty of termination from service. Though it is true that the additional respondents would have got appointment in case the petitioners had not suppressed these material facts, fact remains that the University has not exercised its discretion in the case of the petitioners because the direction of Government was to terminate their services/to remove the petitioners after taking action. Therefore the show case notices issued to them at any stage would have entailed only in the termination/removal from the service of the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is for the University to take a decision after considering the factual circumstances pointed out by the petitioners and found in the quick verification report regarding the denial of experience certificate and the fact that they have worked before 2010. 20. In the above circumstances Ext.P1 series of termination are set aside. It would be open for the University to take appropriate action untrammeled by the direction issued by the Government on the basis of the vigilance report as also the recommendations made in the vigilance report to the extent it directs removal of the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.28951/16 & 31038/17 :19: ## **W.P.(C) No. 31038 of 2017** In view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.28951 of 2016, the orders Exts. P5 and P6 are set aside. It is made clear that Ext.P4 order declaring the petitioners as permanent would be subject to the decision to be taken by the respondents on the basis of the directions in the aforesaid judgment. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** rkc