State Institute of Medical Education and Technology (SI-MET) & Director, SI-MET v. Dr. Janet; State of Kerala; SMT. Prasanna B.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA,** **1944** **WA NO. 1411 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 13569/2018 OF HIGH COURT** ## **OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 4:** - **1 THE STATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY (SI - MET), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS,PALLIMUKKU,PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY (SI-MET), PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.** **BY ADVS. LAL K.JOSEPH SURESH SUKUMAR KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE ANZIL SALIM** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:** - **1 DR. JANET , "DAIWIK", PATHAIKKARA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 322.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA,. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 2 :- - **3 SMT.PRASANNA B.,** **PRINCIPAL IN-CHARGE, SIMET COLLEGE OF NURSING, STATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR (B/O) N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) P.K.MANOJKUMAR SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SR.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 3 :- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. -----------------------------------------------** **Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2022.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No.13569 of 2018. The appellants were respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition. 2. The matter relates to the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment to the post of Principal in the nursing colleges run by the second respondent, the State Institute of Medical Education and Technology (SI-MET), a body owned and controlled by the State Government. The fourth respondent is the Director of SI-MET. 3. The petitioner was appointed earlier on 14.06.2011 as the Principal of one of the nursing colleges run by SI-MET on contract basis based on a selection conducted by Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 4 :- SI-MET. While working as Principal, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 06.11.2013 as per Ext.P2 order on the ground that she had furnished a false statement in her 'Resume' submitted along with her application and in the 'Proforma' furnished before the interview board concerning her experience and produced a fraudulent experience certificate in order to obtain appointment. It is stated that the certificate of teaching experience for the period from 08.07.1998 to 11.06.2003 produced by the petitioner, which was obtained by her from Dr.M.V.Shetty Institute of Health Science, Mangalore (the Institute) cannot be accepted as genuine since she was working as a Staff Nurse at the Government Hospital, Nilambur for the period from 10.07.1998 till 13.07.2003. Criminal law was also set in motion simultaneously against the petitioner for having produced a fraudulent experience certificate. After investigation, the case registered by the police in this regard was referred. After the refer report, Ext.P2 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10746 of 2014 mainly on the ground that she was working as teaching faculty of the Institute also while working as a Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 5 :- Staff Nurse in the Government Hospital, Nilambur. This Court found that the petitioner had not suppressed the fact that she was working as a Staff Nurse in an institution in the State while working as a teaching faculty in an Institution outside the State and it cannot, therefore, be said that she has furnished false information in the matter of securing the employment. However, the petitioner was not given any relief in the writ petition, as by then, the term of her contract was over. Ext.P3 is the judgment in the said writ petition. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 judgment in appeal on the ground that she should have been directed to be reinstated. Though this court dismissed the appeal in terms of Ext.P4 judgment, it was directed that if in future there is fresh recruitment, either permanent, temporary or contractual or for extension of service, the petitioner would have the rights to apply and to be considered and Ext.P2 order will not come in her way. It was also clarified in Ext.P4 judgment that no part of Ext.P20 shall be used to deny her employment. 4. Later, on 07.11.2018, SI-MET issued Ext.P15 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 6 :- Principal from among candidates who possess the requisite academic qualification with 15 years experience. It was stipulated in the said notification that out of the 15 years experience, 12 years shall be teaching experience, that too, with a minimum of 5 years in collegiate programme. The petitioner applied for selection pursuant to Ext.P15. In the application, the petitioner produced before SI-MET the very same certificate earlier produced by her as obtained from the Institute, in order to establish her teaching experience. In the light of Ext.P2 order, the petitioner was required to explain as to how she can claim 5 years teaching experience between the period from 08.07.1998 to 11.06.2003 from the Institute, as she was working as a Staff Nurse in the service of the State Government from 10.07.1998 to 13.07.2003. Ext.P16 is the communication issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner in this regard. In Ext.P16, the petitioner was also called upon to produce a fresh certificate from the Institute indicating the exact number of days in which she had worked as a teacher in that institution. Ext.P16(a) is the reply sent by the petitioner to Ext.P16 communication. The stand taken by Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 7 :- the petitioner in Ext.P16(a) reply is that in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, SI-MET is bound to accept the certificate of teaching experience issued by the Institute. On a consideration of the reply offered by the petitioner, SI-MET issued Ext.P20 communication to the petitioner on 06.07.2019 stating that since the petitioner failed to produce the certificate insisted as per Ext.P16 communication, it has to be concluded that she does not have the requisite teaching experience and she is therefore not eligible to be considered for appointment in terms of Ext.P15 notification. Ext.P20 communication was under challenge in the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent in the writ petition pointing out that though the case registered against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint lodged by SI-MET was referred initially, there was a further investigation in the matter and it was revealed in the said investigation that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner for securing employment on contract basis was a fake one and consequently an additional final report has been filed in the said case alleging that the petitioner has committed Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 8 :- offences punishable under Sections 406, 471 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and that the said case is pending. It was specifically contended by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that if the certificate produced by the petitioner, as obtained by her from the Institute is not reckoned, the petitioner will not satisfy the eligibility criterion as regards the minimum teaching experience. The experience certificate produced by the petitioner as obtained by her from the Institute as also the Resume submitted by the petitioner in the earlier selection process were produced by the fourth respondent along with the counter affidavit as Exts.R4(f) and R4(h) respectively. As regards Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, the stand taken in the counter affidavit was that the effect of the said judgments was only that the petitioner cannot be deprived of an opportunity to participate in future selections. 6. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge took the view that in the absence of any challenge against Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, SI-MET is precluded from doubting the correctness of Ext.R4(f) experience certificate, and the conduct on the part of SI-MET in Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 9 :- insisting a further certificate from the Institute as to the dates during which the petitioner had worked in that institution is an ingenious device to get over the conclusive declarations in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that in the light of the said judgments, the subsequent investigation in the crime registered against the petitioner and the additional final report holding that Ext.R4(f) experience certificate is fake, is of no consequence. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, Ext.P20 communication was set aside and SI-MET was directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for selection in the light of the observations in the judgment. It was, however, clarified by the learned Single Judge that if, through a proper process of law and under a competent judicial proceedings, the experience certificate of the petitioner is found to be forged or fraudulent in future, SI-MET will have the full liberty to initiate a legally sanctioned action against the petitioner and the petitioner will be fully obligated to abide by the same, subject to her available remedies, indicating that in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, there cannot be any action based on the Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 10 :- subsequent final report in the crime registered against the petitioner unless any court upholds that the experience certificate of the petitioner is forged and fraudulent. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “16. The narrative of the essential facts and submissions as afore would make it apodictic that the only point of controversy between the parties at this stage, is whether the Experience Certificate produced by the petitioner from the 'M.V.Shetty Institute', to the effect that she had worked with them for five years between 08.07.1998 and 11.06.2003, could have been discredited and jettisoned by the 2[nd] respondent and is then seeking her to produce "certificate of actual working days" from them. 17. Of course, before I proceed to consider the afore issue, I must record that am fully cognizant of the further submissions of Sri.Suresh Sukumar that even prior to Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, a criminal case had been lodged against the petitioner by another person, seeking an investigation into the validity of the Experience Certificate produced by the petitioner and that a Final Charge Sheet has now been laid before the Trial Court against her. He then showed me that, in fact, the criminal imputations against the petitioner has been challenged by her by filing Crl.M.C.No.5743/2015 before this Court; and that though the trial was stayed initially, said case has been disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to workout her remedies as per law and leaving open the contentions of both sides appropriately. His argument thus was that, therefore, unless the trial of the said case is over, and the petitioner exonerated from the charges, she cannot seek appointment from his clients. Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 11 :- 18. Normally, when a Criminal Case is pending against an applicant, this Court will be loathed to offer him/her any benefit flowing out of or touching upon the imputations made against him/her. However, this case presents a very different scenario, which I cannot shut my eyes to. 19. As I have already said above, the petitioner was initially terminated from service in the year 2013, through Ext.P2, on the singular allegation that the Experience Certificate obtained by her from the “M.V.Shetty Institute” was a forged one. This order was challenged by the petitioner which led to Ext.P3 judgment, wherein, her explanation as to how she obtained the said certificate, even while working in the Government service during the simultaneous period, was accepted and declared to be legitimate and justified. Interestingly, Ext.P3 was never appealed against by the respondent, but the petitioner approached the learned Division Bench, through W.A.No.1631/2015, because, in spite of the affirmative findings in her favour, the learned Single Judge had refused to order her restatement. The learned Division Bench confirmed every finding and conclusions of the learned Single Judge, rendering it beyond contest that the petitioner's Experience Certificate has been correctly found to be genuine by the learned Single Judge; but modifying Ext.P3 judgment only to the extent of ordering the 2nd respondent to consider her appointment to the next arising vacancy as per law, but de hors, Ext.P2, which was the order of termination in which her Certificate of Experience was alleged to be forged. 20. Therefore, without Exts.P3 and P4 judgments being challenged, the 2[nd] respondent could never have denied consideration of the petitioner's application for the reason that her Certificate of Experience was false. However, instead of doing so, the 2[nd] respondent appears to have relied upon a Criminal case registered against the petitioner on the basis of Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 12 :- a complaint made by someone in the past, and then to say that unless the trial therein is completed, her appointment cannot be considered. In fact, though this is not so stated expressly in Ext.P20, the respondents are seen to have adopted an ingenious device asking the petitioner to produce a “Certificate of actual working days” from the “M.V.Shetty Institute” which can only be construed to be an oblique attempt to get over the conclusive declarations of this Court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. 21. This Court certainly fails to understand how the 2[nd] respondent could have issued Ext.P20, asking the petitioner to produce a further certificate from the “M.V.Shetty Institute” when the Experience Certificate produced by her has been found to be genuine and her explanation, as to how she has obtained it, affirmed to be without suspicion by this Court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. One cannot view this, except as a method to overreach the judgments of this Court by the 2[nd] respondent and can, therefore, never be countenanced. 22. In the afore perspective, the factum of a Criminal Case pending against the petitioner is of no consequence at all, even if this Court accepts the submission of Sri.Suresh Sukumar that a charge sheet has been laid against her. In fact, as has been already recorded, another learned Judge of this Court, in Crl.M.C No.5743/2015, has reserved liberty to the petitioner to defend the said case with all contentions available to her, including relying on Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. There can be little doubt about this. 23. Coming back to Ext.P20, the only other reason stated therein is that the petitioner's educational certificates have not been registered by the Nursing Council. This deficiency, even if it is found tenable, has been rectified subsequently through Ext.P21 judgment and it is admitted that such certificates have been registered, copies of which Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 13 :- are produced on record as Exts.P23 to P25. 24. It is, therefore, irrefragable that petitioner cannot be denied consideration of her application for appointment solely because the 2nd respondent suspects the Experience Certificate obtains from “M.V.Shetty Institute” to be “fraudulent”. Once this Court had declared that the petitioner's explanation extracted in paragraph No.4 of this judgment was justified and deserving acceptance and since both the learned Single Bench and the Division Bench, through Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, condemnedthe reasons for the termination of the petitioner in Ext.P2 as being illegal and unfair, leading to a direction that her case be considered for future vacancies _de hors_ the same, the present attempt of the 2nd respondent to deny her the said benefit for the reasons stated in Ext.P20 certainly requires to be deprecated, which I do. 25. In the afore context, it is evident and luculent that mere pendency of a Criminal Case against the petitioner, and that too at the instance of some one else, cannot be used by the 2nd respondent to deny her legitimate claims. 26. Indubitably, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief, which this Court must give her, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P20; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the 2nd respondent, to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations above, after affording her an opportunity of being heard – if so necessary; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Solely for the purpose of reiterated clarity, I make it clear that, if, through a proper process of law and under a Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 14 :- competent judicial proceeding, the petitioner's Experience Certificate is found to be “forged” or “fraudulent” in future, the 2[nd] respondent will have full liberty to initiate every legally sanctioned action against her; and the petitioner will be fully obligated to abide by the same, subject to her available remedies. To paraphrase, until such time as the Experience Certificate of the petitioner is found to be a forged or fraudulent document by a competent Court, the 2nd respondent cannot deny her appointment on that ground, because the declarations in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments cover the field fully. After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned Senior Counsel – Sri.Nandakumara Menon, intervened to say that the Registry of the Kerala University of Health Sciences has issued Ext.R4(a) communication to the 2nd respondent, saying that the qualification and experience for the post of Principal has been altered from 14/01/2020. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that this communication is without any consequence because the Registrar of the University has issued the same was without amendments being made to the applicable Circulars/Rules and this is crucial since there are no statutory Rules governing the appointments, as has been noticed by the learned Division Bench in Ext.P4 judgment. He submitted that in any event, even if Ext.R4(a) can be given any worth, it should not apply to his client's case because her application was much before 14/01/2020. I must say that I find substantial force in the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel; and consequently, deem it necessary to further order that consideration of the petitioner's application, as directed above, shall be done _de hors_ Ext.R4(a).” ## Respondents 2 and 4 are aggrieved by the judgment and Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 15 :- hence, this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4 and the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4 reiterated the stand of SI-MET in the counter affidavit that the effect of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments is only that the petitioner shall not be deprived of an opportunity to participate in any of the future selections of SI-MET to the post of Principal of the nursing colleges run by it and that the said judgments cannot be understood as a mandate for SI-MET to accept Ext.R4(f) experience certificate claimed to have been obtained by the petitioner from the Institute, in future selections. It was also argued by the learned counsel that at any rate, in the light of the subsequent final report in the crime registered against the petitioner to the effect that the teaching experience certificate aforesaid is a fake one, the learned Single Judge ought not have directed SI-MET to accept the same. 9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the light of the categoric findings and directions contained in Exts.P3 and P4 Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 16 :- judgments, SI-MET is bound to accept Ext.R4(f) experience certificate. 10. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 11. As noted, Ext.P15 is the notification inviting applications for the subject selection. The qualification required for the candidates as prescribed in Ext.P15 notification, reads thus: “Invited from the Principal/ Professor/ Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor / retired hands aged below 60 years / from Government/ Private management institutions having M.Sc Nursing Degree with 15 years experience with M.Sc (Nursing) out of which 12 years should be teaching experience with minimum of 5 years in collegiate programme. Ph.D (Nursing) is desirable. Appointment to the post is on contract basis for a period of one year with consolidated monthly salary amount equal to initial scale of pay with 35% DA + HRA and CCA applicable.” As evident from Ext.P15 notification, what is required for the candidates applying for selection is 15 years experience with M.Sc.Nursing Degree, of which, 12 years shall be teaching experience and out of the said 12 years, 5 years of teaching experience shall be in a collegiate programme. It is reckoning the teaching experience claimed to have been acquired by the Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 17 :- petitioner from the Institute, that she claims that she satisfies the requirement in terms of Ext.P15 notification as regards the teaching experience. Ext.R4(f) experience certificate reads thus: DR.M.V.SHETTY INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES (Affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences) Vidyanagar, Mangalore-575 013, Karnataka, India Phone:0824 481048, 481096 Fax : 0824 4278897 Ref: Date: ## TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certified that Miss. JANET J has been working in the institution as Assistant Lecturer from 8/7/1998 to 11/6/2003. During her tenure she was teaching as well as supervising the B.Sc.Nursing students in clinical areas such as fundamental of nursing community heal nursing and medical surgical nursing. I found her responsible and caring teacher. She relates well with her colleagues. She will complete her assignment within time whatever entrusted to her. She was involving all departmental activities. I wish her all the very best for her future endeavors. Sd/11.06.2003 Principal, Dr.M.V.Shetty College of Nursing. As evident from the extracted certificate, it relates to the period from 08.07.1998 to 11.06.2003. The fact that the petitioner was working as a Staff Nurse in Government Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 18 :- Hospital, Nilambur for the period from 10.07.1998 to 13.07.2003 has been admitted by the petitioner in her Resume submitted for the earlier selection. The specific pleading of the petitioner as to how she could gain teaching experience while working as Staff Nurse in a hospital, as contained in W.P.(C) No.10746 of 2014, reads thus: “At the time of joining the B.Sc Nursing course in 1996, petitioner executed a "SERVICE BOND" with Dr.M.V.Shetty College of Nursing, Mangalore. But taking note of the fact that the petitioner got a Government job immediately before completing the B.Sc Nursing course, M.V.Shetty college authorities were kind enough to permit the petitioner to complete the one year "SERVICE BOND" period at the convenience of the petitioner, without any break in her Government service, which, as a matter of fact, spread over an intermittent period of 5 years, that too, without any monetary benefits whatsoever. They were also kind enough to temporarily release her original certificates at the time of interview for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in Government Hospital, Nilambur in July 1998. Since as a matter of fact, petitioner's one year "SERVICE BOND" period could be completed intermittently within a span of 5 years, M.V.Shetty College authorities issued an experience certificate of Assistant lecturer showing the entire period of 5 years (8.7.1998 to 11.6.2003).” As evident from the extracted explanation, the stand of the petitioner is that while she was working as a Staff Nurse at Nilambur, in the State of Kerala, she was working Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 19 :- simultaneously as a teaching faculty in a nursing college at Mangalore, in the State of Karnataka also. It is seen that, since teaching experience is mandatorily insisted in terms of Ext.P15 notification, the fourth respondent issued Ext.P20 communication to the petitioner calling upon her to indicate the particulars of the period during which she had worked as a teaching faculty in the Institute. The said course adopted by SIMET is one expected from SI-MET being a public institution and they cannot be found fault with for the same. The question therefore is whether Exts.P3 and P4 judgments would preclude SI-MET from adopting the said course. 12. The opening and concluding paragraphs of Ext.P2 order read thus: “Smt. J. Janet, Principal, SI-MET College of Nursing, Malampuzha who was appointed on 15.06.2011 on contract basis for 1 year on temporary basis, vide reference 1[st] cited, had committed grave misconduct by cheating SI-MET and its Selection Committee, who conducted interview on 21.02.2011, by fraudulent production of five years teaching experience from 08.07.1998 to 11.06.2003, from Dr. M.V. Shetty Institute of Health Science, Mangalore. At the same time she was working as Staff Nurse from 10.07.1998 to 13.07.2003 under District Medical Officer, Malappuram and removed from service w.e.f. 14.06.2005, as per the report of Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 20 :- DMO, Malappuram, vide his letter No. A5/19955/12 dated 15.12.2012. She had furnished false statement in her 'Resume' received along with her application and 'Proforma' furnished before the Interview Board of SI-MET regarding her experience and produced fraud certificate before the Interview Board in order to obtain higher rank in the interview and to obtain job. ## At present there is no contract made with the Principal. The District Medical Officer, Malappuram in his letter No.A5/19955/2012 dated 15.12.2012 has stated that Smt.J.Janet entered service as Staff Nurse Grade II at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Nilambur w.e.f. 10.07.1998 and transferred to General Hospital, Manjeri w.e.f. 4.8.1998. This shows that she was an employee of Health Service Department of Government of Kerala as Staff Nurse. The teaching experience certificate as Assistant Lecturer in Dr.M.V.Shetty Institute of Health Sciences, Vidyanagar, Mangalore, Karnataka for the period from 08.07.1998 to 11.06.2003 says that she was teaching in that Institution as Assistant Lecturer. Hence the experience certificate produced by her is found hand. Hence her service in SI-MET is terminated with immediate effect. Smt.. J. Janet will hand over charges as Principal to Sri.Pavithran Rayorath Principal of SI-MET College of Nursing, Mundur forthwith. Director E.S.I. In the circumstances, the appointment of Smt. J. Janet, Principal, SI-MET College of Nursing, Malampuzha is terminated with immediate effect. She should hand over charge to Sri.Pavithran Rayorath, Principal, SI-MET College of Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 21 :- Nursing, Mundur, Palakkad District forthwith.” It is clear from the extracted paragraphs that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that she furnished a false statement in her Resume along with her application and in the Proforma furnished before the interview board. The recitals in Ext.P2 order clearly indicate that the basis of the termination is that the petitioner could not have acquired teaching experience from a college situated in the State of Karnataka, that too, for a period of five years while working as a Staff Nurse in a Government Hospital in the State of Kerala. Ext.P2 communication does not indicate that SI-MET had maintained at the relevant time that Ext.R4(f) certificate was a fake one, although they maintain now that Ext.R4(f) certificate is a fake one. A close reading of Ext.P3 judgment would indicate that what was examined in the said case was whether the petitioner has made any false statement and whether the certificate produced by the petitioner can be regarded as a fraudulent one inasmuch as she claims that she was working as a Staff Nurse in an institution in the State of Kerala and as teaching faculty in an institution in the State of Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 22 :- ## Karnataka. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the judgment read thus: “9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, per contra, would submit that a combined reading of Exts.R2 (b) and R2(e) certificates issued by M.V.Shetty Institute of Health Science would make it clear that it is based on that certificate that the petitioner's period of service as Assistant Lecturer in that institution has been shown as 8.7.1998 to 11.6.2003. In ground-B of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly explained the circumstances under which M.V.Shetty College authorities have issued the experience certificate of Assistant Lecturers showing the entire period of 5 years from 8.7.1998 to 11.6.2003. 10. The explanation reads as follows: - “At the time of joining the B.Sc Nursing course in 1996, petitioner executed a “SERVICE BOND” with Dr.M.V.Shetty College of Nursing, Mangalore. But taking note of the fact that the petitioner got a Government job immediately before completing the B.Sc Nursing course, M.V.Shetty college authorities were kind enough to permit the petitioner to complete the one year “SERVICE BOND” period at the convenience of the petitioner, without any break in her Government service, which, as a matter of fact, spread over an intermittent period of 5 years, that too, without any monetary benefits whatsoever. They were also kind enough to temporarily release her original certificates at the time of interview for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in Government Hospital, Nilambur in July 1998. Since as a matter of fact, petitioner's one year “SERVICE BOND” period could be completed intermittently Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 23 :- within a span of 5 years, M.V.Shetty College authorities issued an experience certificate of Assistant lecturer showing the entire period of 5 years (8.7.1998 to 11.6.2003).” 11. A combined reading of Ext.R2(b) and Ext.R2(e) and the explanation given in Ground B would make it clear that the petitioner had not suppressed any fact and did not submit any untrue statement before the interview board.” The extracted paragraphs would indicate that this Court has come to the conclusion based on the explanation offered by the petitioner that she has not made any false statement and that she had disclosed to SI-MET that she was working simultaneously as a teaching faculty in one institution while working as a Staff Nurse in another institution, indicating clearly that in such a situation, her services could not have been terminated on the ground that she has furnished false information to SI-MET for obtaining employment. It is seen that this court did not examine the question as to whether Ext.R4(f) could be regarded as a certificate to establish the teaching experience of the petitioner. Obviously, this Court could not have considered the said question, for essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide, according to the needs of the employer as also the nature of Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 24 :- work and the courts cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with essential eligibility by an interpretative rewiring of the notification, calling for the application [See **Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade** , (2019) 6 SCC 362]. As already noted, SI-MET did not challenge Ext.P3 judgment. Instead, the petitioner alone challenged Ext.P3 judgment on the premise that she was entitled to reinstatement in service, despite the fact that the term of her appointment was over. The Division Bench which dealt with the appeal did not interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge, nevertheless it clarified that if in future, there is fresh recruitment, either permanent, temporary, or contractual or for extension of service, the petitioner would have the rights to apply and to be considered and Ext.P20 will not come in her way. It was also clarified that no part of Ext.P20 can be used to deny her employment. Paragraph 7 of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1631 of 2015 reads thus: “7. In view of the aforesaid, even though we cannot grant relief of reinstatement to her, we would make it clear that if in Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 25 :- future, there is fresh recruitment, either permanent, temporary or contractual or for extension of service, the writ petitioner/appellant would have the rights to apply and to be considered and Ext.P20 will not come in her way. No part of Ext.P20 can be used to deny her employment. To this extent we modify the order of the learned single Judge.” In Ext.P4 judgment also, this Court did not consider the question as to whether Ext.R4(f) could be regarded as a certificate to establish the teaching experience of the petitioner. On a meticulous reading of Ext.P4 judgment, we are of the view that what was intended in terms of the said judgment was only that Ext.P2 order shall not preclude the petitioner from participating in the future selections of SI-MET. Needless to say, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Exts.P3 and P4 judgments would preclude SI-MET from doubting the correctness of Ext.R4(f) experience certificate, is unsustainable. We take this view also for the reason that even assuming that Ext.R4(f) is a genuine certificate, accepting the stand aforesaid of the learned Single Judge will have the effect of accepting the stand of the petitioner that she had worked as a teaching faculty in a college in the State of Karnataka, that too, for a period of 5 years while working as a Staff Nurse in a Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2022 -: 26 :- Government Hospital in the State of Kerala. Not only that, acceptance of the stand aforesaid of the learned Single Judge will have the effect of thrusting upon a public institution, a person who does not possess the experience required for discharging the functions attached to a post effectively, according to them, to be appointed in that post. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** ds 09.11.2022