# Nupur Verma v. Central Ware Housing Corporation

- **Citation:** Service Bench No.1885 of 2011
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-26
- **Case number:** Service Bench No.1885 of 2011
- **Bench:** Uma Nath Singh, Dr. SATISH CHANDRA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nupur-verma-v-central-ware-housing-corporation-42944
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Termination
of
Service-post
of
Management
Trainee(General)-advertised with minimum
requisite qualification M.B.A. (marketing)-
Petitioner being M.B.A. from B.H.U.-online
application
wrongly
describer
her
qualification as M.B.A.(M)-after written
test-interview-undergone
training-on
verification of record faul game of petitioner
seen the light of day-order passed after
following the principle of Natural justicecontention of petitioner that M.B.A. being
equivalent to M.B.A. fully eligible to be
appointed-held-when
no
equivalent
qualification prescribed in advertisement-
1 All Dr. Anjana Parmar Vs. State of U.P. And Others
549
no
benefit
can
be
derived
by
mis
representation of facts-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-23
In the instant case, the candidate did not
possess the requisite qualification and
continuously she wrongly declared her
qualification as MBA (Marketing), which
was
never
possessing
by
her.
The
equivalent qualification can be admitted
when the rules permit the same. In the
instant case, no rule has been brought to
the notice for the equivalent qualification.
Though, we have sympathy with the
candidate, but fact remains that her
services were terminated when she was
likely to complete her training i.e. within
seven months and after providing proper
opportunity where her entire submissions
have been considered as mentioned in the
termination
order.
Initially,
her
testimonials were verified by an out source
agency
i.e.
AIMA.
When
the
misrepresentation was deducted by the
employer
i.e.
Central
Warehousing
Corporation, her services were rightly
terminated.
Case Law discussed:
1999 (1) SCC 246; 2010 (2) SCC 169; (1995) 1
SCC 138; (2009) 4 SCC 555; (2009) 4 SCC
563; (1996) 7 SCC 118; (2007) 4 SCC 54;
(2006) 2 SCC 315; (2006) 9 SCC 564; (1995) 1
SCC 138; (2004) 6 SCC 325; (2003) 8 SCC
319; (1889) 14 AC 337; (1886-90) All ER Rep
1: 58 LJ Ch 864:61 LT 265 (HL); (2010) 5
SCC 349; (2009) 4 SCC 555;(1996) 7 SCC 118;
(2007) 4 SCC 54; (2006) 3 SCC 315

## Text

548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

संया--15/19/2001(1)--
का--4--
2007 त*Kनांक।

ितिलप, िनJनिलGखत के सूचनाथ
एवं आवLयक कायवाह हेतु ेषत

1. समाज कHयाण अनुभाग- 3 को
उनके
प3
संया-1719/26-3-2007-3
(11)/2006, *दनांक09 मई, 2007 के संदभ
म।

2. कािमक अनुभाग-2

आMा से,

(सुरेश च यादव)

वशेष कायािधकार।"

5. We are of the view that till
notification of the year 1967 is operative,
it has got force of law and being
constitutional mandate, there is no option
on the part of the respondents except to
obey and provide reservation under
Bhotia, Jannsari and Raji communities.
The impugned order seems to have been
passed on unfounded ground. The U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
has
incorrectly interpreted the letter dated
9.5.2007 (supra) sent by the State of U.P.
to Government of India. It is only the
request to accept or reject it. Since prayer
of the State Government of U.P. is still
under consideration, the impugned order
has been passed on unfounded ground and
without application of mind.

6. In view of the above, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the impugned order
dated 26.5.2011 contained in Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition with all
consequential benefit. Respondents shall
reconsider
the
petitioner's
case
for
selection
and
appointment
against
available vacancies in accordance with
Rules under ST category expeditiously
say, within four months.

8. No orders as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

Service Bench No.1885 of 2011

Nupur Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Ware Housing Corporation

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Rajesh
Singh
Chauhan,
Sri
Vikramaditya Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Anish Srivastava "Lal", Sri Hari Prasad
Gupta
Sri S.M. Royekwar, Sri Shishir Jain

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Termination
of
Service-post
of
Management
Trainee(General)-advertised with minimum
requisite qualification M.B.A. (marketing)-
Petitioner being M.B.A. from B.H.U.-online
application
wrongly
describer
her
qualification as M.B.A.(M)-after written
test-interview-undergone
training-on
verification of record faul game of petitioner
seen the light of day-order passed after
following the principle of Natural justicecontention of petitioner that M.B.A. being
equivalent to M.B.A. fully eligible to be
appointed-held-when
no
equivalent
qualification prescribed in advertisement-
1 All Dr. Anjana Parmar Vs. State of U.P. And Others
549
no
benefit
can
be
derived
by
mis
representation of facts-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-23
In the instant case, the candidate did not
possess the requisite qualification and
continuously she wrongly declared her
qualification as MBA (Marketing), which
was
never
possessing
by
her.
The
equivalent qualification can be admitted
when the rules permit the same. In the
instant case, no rule has been brought to
the notice for the equivalent qualification.
Though, we have sympathy with the
candidate, but fact remains that her
services were terminated when she was
likely to complete her training i.e. within
seven months and after providing proper
opportunity where her entire submissions
have been considered as mentioned in the
termination
order.
Initially,
her
testimonials were verified by an out source
agency
i.e.
AIMA.
When
the
misrepresentation was deducted by the
employer
i.e.
Central
Warehousing
Corporation, her services were rightly
terminated.
Case Law discussed:
1999 (1) SCC 246; 2010 (2) SCC 169; (1995) 1
SCC 138; (2009) 4 SCC 555; (2009) 4 SCC
563; (1996) 7 SCC 118; (2007) 4 SCC 54;
(2006) 2 SCC 315; (2006) 9 SCC 564; (1995) 1
SCC 138; (2004) 6 SCC 325; (2003) 8 SCC
319; (1889) 14 AC 337; (1886-90) All ER Rep
1: 58 LJ Ch 864:61 LT 265 (HL); (2010) 5
SCC 349; (2009) 4 SCC 555;(1996) 7 SCC 118;
(2007) 4 SCC 54; (2006) 3 SCC 315

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J)

1. By this petition, the petitioner has
assailed the termination order dated
28.09.2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the
opposite party no. 2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner obtained a Degree known as
"Master
of
International
Business
Administration
Degree"
(in
short,
'MIBA'). She submitted on-line her
application for the post of Management
Trainee
(General)
for
the
Central
Warehousing Corporation, by mentioning
her qualification as MBA (Marketing).
After qualifying the written test and
interview, she was selected on the post
and had undergone for the training. When
she was likely to complete training, her
services were terminated by the impugned
order dated 28th September, 2011 by
mentioning that the petitioner is not
possessing the MBA (Marketing) i.e.
essential qualification. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.

3. With this background, Sri Rajesh
Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the qualification
for the Management Trainees (G) is MBA
(Marketing).
The
petitioner
has
mentioned in on-line application, her
qualification as MBA (Marketing). He
submits that the MIBA Degree is at par
with MBA Degree as per the clarification
dated 01.04.2008, issued by the Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi (in short,
'BHU'),
from
where
the
petitioner
obtained the MIBA Degree. He further
submits that the syllabus/curriculum and
eligibility criteria are identical to the
MIBA and MBA Degrees. He further
submits that the recruitment for the post
in question will have to be made under the
Regulation
20(i)
of
the
Central
Warehousing
Corporation
(Staff
Regulations), 1986. So, all the rules
applicable to the Government Servant will
apply in the present case.

4. It is also a submission of the
learned counsel that interview was held
on 25.10.2010 and before the aforesaid
interview, her complete documents were
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
verified by the competent authority and
she was selected. In the call letter, it was
clearly mentioned that the "candidate
will not be permitted to appear for
interview, in case you do not possess
requisite criteria pursuant to the
qualification,
age,
etc."
After
the
interview, the offer was made to the
petitioner vide OM dated 14.01.2011, and
the petitioner has joined at Central
Warehousing Corporation, Shahjahanpur
(U.P.). However, the petitioner was
serving in the Regional Office, Lucknow
at the time of issuance of the impugned
termination order. He again submitted that
before joining the service, the petitioner
submitted all the original documents
before the competent authority, but
nowhere she was prevented to join her
duties. He relied on the ratio laid down on
the following cases :-

(i) Commissioner of Police Delhi
and another vs. Dhaval Singh, 1999 (1)
SCC 246; and

(ii) Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State
of M.P., 2010 (2) SCC 169.

5. Learned counsel has drawn the
attention to the letter of the BHU from
where the petitioner has obtained the
Degree of MIBA. In the said letter, it is
clearly mentioned that the students of
MIBA are eligible for financial and
marketing jobs and the same is at par with
MBA Degree. Moreover, in the academic
session 2010-11, the MIBA course was
renamed as MBA (IB) (Annexure-7). So,
the MIBA and MBA are the same
specially when both have identical
syllabus and course. Thus, the petitioner
is fulfilling all the minimum qualification
prescribed for the post. The documents of
the
petitioner
were
duly
scrutinized/verified twice and were found
in order as per the verification made by
the BHU. There is no misconduct on the
part of the petitioner. The termination
order dated 28.09.2011 is not only illegal,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 12, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
but also violative of relevant provisions of
Regulation, 1986. So, he made a request
that the impugned termination order
(Annexure-1) may kindly be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Sri Shishir
Jain, learned counsel for the Central
Warehousing Corporation justified the
impugned order. He submits that the
petitioner had submitted self-attested
documents at the time of interview as well
as joining report and a certificate from the
Assistant
Registrar,
Faculty
of
Management Study, to claim that the
MIBA is at par with MBA. He further
submits that on-line application, the
petitioner has wrongly mentioned her
qualification as MBA (Marketing), which
she never possessed. In the Bio-data also
she has shown her qualification as MBA
Marketing (BHU). In fact, the petitioner
possesses MIBA Degree which may be
equivalent to MBA but certainly not
MBA.
The
post
in
question
i.e.
Management Training was published by
AIMA on behalf of Central Warehousing
Corporation. The AIMA, after making
inquires to their satisfaction as per the
eligibility requirement, MBA Marketing
Degree was laid down by the Corporation.
The AIMA in consultation with the
interview Board, cleared her candidature
to proceed for the interview.

7. Learned counsel further submits
that proper opportunity was provided to
the petitioner to represent her case before
passing the impugned termination order.
The Assistant Registrar, BHU vide letter
dated 19.04.2011 as stated that MIBA
1 All Nupur Verma Vs. Central Ware Housing Corporation
551
Course now re-named as MBA(IB) from
Academic Session 2010-11. But during
the academic session (2006-08), when the
Degree was awarded to the petitioner, the
MIBA was not MBA.

8. Learned counsel further submits
that neither the Central Warehousing
(Staff) Regulations, 1986 nor in the
advertisement it was mentioned that the
candidates having equivalent or at par
qualification
will
be
eligible
for
appointment. Thus, the candidates who
possessed
the
qualification
of
management
other
than
MBA
and
specialization other than as prescribed in
the aforesaid Regulations were not
eligible for appointment.

9. It is also a submission of the
learned counsel that in view of the false
information supplied by the petitioner, she
was called for written test/interview. The
petitioner also submitted bio-data along
with a check list on 24.10.2010 and in
both
the
documents,
the
petitioner
mentioned her qualification as MBA and
not MIBA. After issuance of appointment
letter as Management Trainee (General),
she submitted her joining report on
01.02.2011
at
Central
Warehouse,
Shahjanpur and, in the joining report also
the
petitioner
has
mentioned
her
educational qualification as MBA. The
petitioner has also enclosed attestation
form, wherein also she mentioned her
qualification as MBA. It has been clearly
mentioned in the documents like online
application that in the event of any
information being found false or incorrect
at
any
point
of
time,
her
candidature/appointment
may
be
cancelled/terminated. So, the services of
the petitioner were rightly terminated. For
this purpose, he has relied the ratio laid
down in the following cases :-

(i) Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and
another vs. State of Punjab and others;
(1995) 1 SCC 138;

(ii)
Mohd.
Sohrab
Khan
vs.
Aligarh Muslim University and others;
(2009) 4 SCC 555;

(iii) State of Kerala vs. Zoom
Developers Private Limited; (2009) 4
SCC 563;

(iv) State of M.P. And others vs.
Shyama Pardhi and others; (1996) 7
SCC 118;

(v) Ashok Kumar Sonkars vs.
Union of India and others; (2007) 4
SCC 54;

(vi) Mohd. Sartaj and others vs.
State of U.P. and others; (2006) 2 SCC
315; and

(vii)
State
of
Rajasthan
and
another vs. Kulwant Kaur; (2006) 9
SCC 564.

10. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner is not holding the MBA
Degree,
which
is
the
essential
qualification as per the recruitment rules
prescribed in the Central Warehousing
Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1986 and
amended
vide
notification
dated
18.07.2008 in the Gazette of India. The
essential qualification is Degree with 1st
Class MBA, specialization in Personnel
Management or Human Resource or
Industrial
Relation
or
Marketing
Management
or
Supply
Chain
Management
from
recognized
University/Institution. The recruitment
rules
do
not
mention
essential
qualification equivalent to MBA. So, she
is not having the requisite qualification of
being MBA and, therefore, the petitioner
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
is not eligible for the Management
Training (G) in the Corporation.

11. Learned counsel further submits
that this Hon'ble Court has passed interim
orders dated 04.11.2011 and 23.01.2012,
where the impugned termination order
was stayed, but the said interim orders
passed by this Hon'ble Court were vacated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 4138 of 2012 vide order dated
30.04.2012. So, presently, no order exists
in favour of the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel also relied on
the ratio laid down in the case of
Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and another
vs. State of Punjab and others; (1995) 1
SCC 138. Lastly, he justified the
impugned termination order.

13. After hearing both the parties
and on perusal of the record, it appears
that the petitioner obtained a Degree of
MIBA in the Academic Session 2006-08.
At that time, the MIBA was not
recognized as MBA. This is only in the
Academic Session 2010-11, the Degree of
MIBA was renamed by the BHU as
MBA. So, the petitioner was possessing
the MIBA Degree which may be
equivalent to the MBA but certainly not
MBA. The essential qualification for the
post in question was MBA (Marketing).
There was no provision mentioned for the
equivalent Degree. When the petitioner
submitted her application, she specifically
mentioned her qualification as MBA
(Marketing). She claimed that MIBA is
equivalent to MBA (Marketing), but fact
remains that she has concealed her MIBA
Degree in the application.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case
of
Vice-Chairman,
Kendriya
Vidhalaya Sangathan and another;
(2004) 6 SCC 325 held as under :-

"That in terms of Section 58 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted need
not
be
proved.
Furthermore,
the
respondent herein has been found guilty
of an act of misrepresentation. In our
opinion, no further opportunity of hearing
is necessary to be afforded to him".

15. It is not necessary to dwell into
the matter any further as, in the case of
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi;
(2003) 8 SCC 319. In Derry vs. Peek;
(1889) 14 AC 337: (1886-90) All ER
Rep 1 : 58 LJ Ch 864 : 61 LT 265 (HL),
it was held that :-

"... a false statement, made through
carelessness and without reasonable
ground for believing it to be true, may be
evidence of fraud but does not necessarily
amount to fraud. Such a statement, if
made in the honest belief that it is true, is
not fraudulent and does not render the
person making it liable to an action of
deceit".

16. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Union of India and others
vs. Alok Kumar; (2010) 5 SCC 349 held
that :-

"Whether the de facto prejudice was
a condition precedent for grant of relief
and if so, whether respondents had
discharged their onus.

In the submission of the appellants,
there is no violation of any statutory rule
or provision of the Act. Departmental
inquiry has been conducted in accordance
with the Rules and in consonance with the
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
respondents
have
not
suffered
any
1 All Nupur Verma Vs. Central Ware Housing Corporation
553
prejudice, much less prejudice de facto,
either on account of retired employees of
the railway department being appointed
as inquiry officers in terms of the Rule
9(2) of the Rules or in the case of Alok
Kumar, because of alleged non furnishing
of CVC report. The contention is that the
prejudice is a sine qua non for vitiation of
any
disciplinary
order.
However,
according to the respondents, they have
suffered prejudice ipso facto on both these
accounts as there are violation of
statutory rules as well as the principles of
natural justice. In such cases, by virtue of
operation of law, prejudice should be
presumed and judgment of the Tribunal
and the High Court call for no
interference.

17. In the instant case, it appears that
the recruitment of the trainees for the post
in question, the Central Warehousing
Corporation has hired the services AIMA.
On the basis of information supplied by
the petitioner, she was called for written
test as well as for interview. The agency
selected the candidates. On 14.01.2011
offere for appointment was issued in her
favour. She has joined her training on
01.02.2011 in the Central Warehouse
Corporation at Shahjahanpur. Later, she
was shifted at Regional Headquarter,
Lucknow of the Central Warehouse
Corporation. Only when she joined her
services
at
Lucknow,
the
misrepresentation made by her was
deducted and on 28.09.2011, her services
were terminated after following due
procedure. Thus, services were terminated
within a short period of seven months.
When the period is too short than the
benefit of the equity cannot be extended.

18. Further, it may be mentioned
that for the post in question, the
qualification was MBA and there was no
provision for the equivalent qualification.
The petitioner in her application, bio-data
and attestation form in triplicate, has
shown
her
qualification
as
MBA
(Marketing), which was never possessed
by her. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of
furnishing of false information in the
attestation form where it was clearly
mentioned that "the furnishing of the false
information or suppression of any factual
information in the Attestation Form
would be disqualification, and is likely to
render the candidate unfit for employment
as
Management
Trainee
under
the
Corporation".

19. In the instant case, false
information
was
submitted
by
the
petitioner
initially
in
her
online
application and she repeated the same.
Her services were terminated after giving
a show-cause notice dated 30.08.2011.
Her reply dated 06.09.2011 was also
considered and then only then the
termination
order
was
passed
on
28.09.2011.

20. In the case of Mohd. Soharab
Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University
and others; (2009) 4 SCC 555, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that unless
it is specifically mentioned in the
advertisement that the persons having
equivalent or other qualification is also
eligible for appointment, the post could
not be filled up by the persons having
equivalent/other qualification.

21. Further, in the case of State of
M.P. and others vs. Shyama Pardhi and
others; (1996) 7 SCC 118, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that where the rules
provides for qualification as condition for
appointment on the post and prescribed
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
qualification has not been satisfied, the
initial selection to under go training is
perse illegal.

22. In the case of Ashok Kumar
Sonkar vs. Union of India and others;
(2007) 4 SCC 54, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that possession of requisite
qualification is mandatory. A person not
holding requisite qualification is not
eligible for the post. Similar views were
expressed in the case of Mohd. Sartaj
and another vs. State of U.P. and
others; (2006) 3 SCC 315, where the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when
there is basic lack of qualification, the
candidate
could
not
have
been
appointment nor he could have been
continued and the candidate could not
hold any right over the post.

23. In the instant case, the candidate
did not possess the requisite qualification
and continuously she wrongly declared
her qualification as MBA (Marketing),
which was never possessing by her. The
equivalent qualification can be admitted
when the rules permit the same. In the
instant case, no rule has been brought to
the notice for the equivalent qualification.
Though, we have sympathy with the
candidate, but fact remains that her
services were terminated when she was
likely to complete her training i.e. within
seven months and after providing proper
opportunity where her entire submissions
have been considered as mentioned in the
termination
order.
Initially,
her
testimonials were verified by an out
source agency i.e. AIMA. When the
misrepresentation was deducted by the
employer
i.e.
Central
Warehousing
Corporation, her services were rightly
terminated.

24. In view of above, the impugned
termination order suffers no illegality and
the same is hereby sustained along with
the reasons mentioned therein.

25. In the result, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No
cost.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1954 of 2010

Kuldeep Singh Tomar . ..Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri K.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Sri Rajeev Kumar Saini, Mrs. Archana Sing
Jadon

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 319.-
Summoning of Revisionist-who are brother
and sister of the husband of complainantgeneral allegation of demand of dowryadmittedly the revisionist got education in
Rajasthan working there since long-living
separately from the family of the husband
of
complainant-no
role
specified
in
statement of witness held-Court below
exceeded its jurisdiction-order quashed.

Held: Para-20 & 21
20: The present matter is also regarding
matrimonial
dispute
in
which
the
revisionist who is brother-in-law of the
deceased, has been dragged to face
prosecution
without
any
specific
allegations.