Service Rules Prevail Over Conditions In Recruitment Advertisement: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Termination Of Sanitation Workers By Municipal Authority
The Rajasthan High Court recently granted relief to various sanitation workers whose services were terminated as their experience letter was not certified by the competent authority mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the post. A single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in its August 2 order held that since such a requirement was not prescribed by the Rajasthan...
The Rajasthan High Court recently granted relief to various sanitation workers whose services were terminated as their experience letter was not certified by the competent authority mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the post.
A single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in its August 2 order held that since such a requirement was not prescribed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012 the condition mentioned in the advertisement/notification was foreign to the Rules.
Perusing through Rule 6, Justice Mathur said that provisions states that a candidate seeking direct recruitment as a Safai Karamchari must have minimum one year experience as a Safai worker/ employee in any Municipality, Central or State Department Autonomous Bodies/ Semi Government Institutions constituted by or under an order of the Central or State Government including person appointed on contract basis or through placement agencies
Agreeing with the petitioners' contentions the high court said, "By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the certificate should be signed by a particular authority. Meaning thereby, the certificate showing the experience of one year of working on the post of Safai Karamchari/employee was sufficient to make a person eligible for holding the post of Safai Karamchari as per the Rules. In the present case, since the experience certificate of one year was produced by the petitioners under the signatures of Sanitary Inspector, the same is meeting the test of eligibility.”
Rule will prevail over conditions in Advertisement
Justice Mathur further said that if a provision of law does not provide for producing a certificate by a candidate under the signatures of a particular authority, then the condition mentioned in the advertisement/Notification for producing such a certificate under signatures is "clearly de hors the Rules".
"The provisions mentioned in the Rule will prevail over the condition enumerated in the advertisement. Therefore, the certificates of experience produced by the petitioners under the signatures of the Sanitary Inspector are meeting the provisions of the Rules and therefore, they are held to be valid. There is nothing on record to show that the certificates produced by the petitioners are forged or fabricated, therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is considered that the petitioners are holding the requisite eligibility criteria of experience for appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari," the high court underscored.
The High Court also agreed with the contention of the petitioners' counsel they were not literate enough to understand the "niceties" of the signature on the experience certificate, and observed that they cannot be penalized for it. The High Court also opined that since the petitioners were working for the respondents for 6 years, even equity was in their favour. It added that the "ends of justice" will be met if they are allowed to continue on the post "shorn of the hypertechnical stand" taken by the authority for terminating their services.
Contentions by parties
The petitions were filed by a various persons appointed as Safai Karamcharis (sanitation workers) who were appointed pursuant a 2018 advertisement/notification. Subsequently in 2020 their services were terminated by the Banswara Municipal Council on the ground that the experience letter submitted by them, as per the eligibility requirements of the post, were not signed by the authority that was mentioned in the advertisement/notification. Against this, they moved the high court.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that as per Rule 6 of the Rules, it was not mandatory to obtain the certificate from a particular authority. Since the petitioners belonged to the lowest rung of the society and were not literate enough to understand the consequences of such a requirement, they got the letter signed from the sanitary inspector of their department under whom they were discharging duties beforehand. The counsel further argued that once it was established that the applicants had the required experience, the question of who signed the experience letter did not make much difference especially when no such requirement was mentioned in the Rules.
Meanwhile the respondent authorities said that pursuant to the high court's 2019 directions (in a separate matter), an inquiry was instituted pursuant to which show cause notices were issued and replies by filed by the petitioner workers'. Since the authorities were dissatisfied with the replies, the workers' services were terminated considering that their experience certificate was not under the signature of the authority mentioned in the advertisement/notification in question.
On Fact of a qualification v/s Proof of a qualification
Justice Mathur further referred to the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors. which held that depending on the facts of a case some relaxation can be made for proof of a particular qualification and rigid principles should not be applied as it pertains to the domain of procedure. The High Court also referred to the top court's 2019 decision in Food Corporation of India vs. Rimjhim in which the Supreme Court drew a distinction between essential requirements which was a fact and its proof/mode of proof which was ancillary. The Supreme Court had held that there was a difference between proof of a qualification and the factum of actually getting that qualification, and to "confuse between a fact and its proof was a blurred perspicacity".
Allowing the petitions, the high court set aside the order terminating the petitioner workers services.
Title: Payal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and batch petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 191