CUTTACK, India, Feb. 12 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Jan. 12:
1. Union Government and its entities are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 03.01.2019, whereby OP's O.A. No.496 of 2016 having been favoured, her removal from service came to be set at naught with a direction for reinstatement.
2. Learned DSGI- Mr. P.K. Parhi in his usual vehemence submits that as on the date the appointment order was issued, i.e. 09.06.2014, the OP had attained only the age of 17 years & 9 months, when the rule prescribes 18 years as the minimum age for engagement/appointment. Therefore, on coming to know of true age of the OP, he has been removed from service. He also submits that OP's representation for regularizing her service is also rejected. Learned counsel representing the OP vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and reasons on which it has been constructed. He adds that the removal of his client from service, is without any opportunity of hearing and therefore, being in violation of principles of natural justice, the same has been found fault with by the CAT. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning part of the Tribunal and also for the following additional reasons:
3.1. The OP's date of birth is admittedly 07.06.1996; the advertisement was issued on 14.08.2013 calling for application for engagement. OP had staked her claim for engagement by producing all necessary documents including the Matriculation Certificate, which reflected her date of birth clearly. After looking into all these documents and considering the candidature, OP was issued appointment order on 09.05.2014. It is only on 18.04.2016, the order removing OP from engagement came to be issued. Thus, as on the date the removal was effected, OP had already attained majority and that there is no complaint whatsoever against discharge of her duties. Thus, there is absolutely no culpability attributable to the OP in anyway. Rightly, no culpability is laid at her threshold, either.
3.2. In the matter of engagement, where all documents are produced by the aspiring candidates, the process of engagement takes place indoor and therefore, the doctrine of 'indoor management' comes into play. It is not the case of Petitioners that OP had committed any fraud or fabrication or any act of suppressio very suggestio falsi. It also cannot be assumed, even for the sake of argument, that OP had suppressed her date of birth or had given a wrong date of birth, either, inasmuch as OP had produced the Matriculation Certificate, which apparently contained her correct date of birth, as has been reflected in the application too.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WlAUHA6oIJI22XU4VDxFsRpybiHesTjnLiR02%2FOd%2BfL8&caseno=WP(C)/5592/2019&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010146282019&state_code=11&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
