Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Despite Qualification Issue: Mamta Rohit vs. Dr. Prafulla Ranjan (26 September 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 899

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can an employer terminate an employee’s service after confirming their appointment, simply because of a belated discovery that the employee did not meet the initial qualification criteria, especially when the employer had relaxed those criteria? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue in a case involving the appointment of a Chief General Manager. The core question revolved around whether the employer could cancel the appointment of an employee who had already joined, completed probation, and been confirmed in service, based on a retrospective assessment of their qualifications. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

In 2011, the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (the third respondent) invited applications for two positions of Chief General Manager. The appellant, Mamta Rohit, applied for one of these positions. Although the appointing authority initially believed that she did not meet the required qualifications, they relaxed the qualification criteria, citing a clause in the advertisement allowing for such relaxation in deserving cases.

Following a written test and interview, the appellant was offered the position on 31 May 2011 and joined on 1 July 2011. To accept this position, she resigned from her post as Deputy General Manager at IDBI Bank. After completing her probation, the appellant was confirmed in her service.

Towards the end of 2013, some unsuccessful candidates challenged the appellant’s appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). While the matter was pending, the Ministry of Finance sent a letter on 17 February 2014, leading to a show cause notice to the appellant on 21 February 2014. Unsatisfied with her reply, the appointing authority cancelled her appointment on 13 March 2014.

The appellant challenged this cancellation before the CAT in Allahabad and continued in service due to an interim order. The CAT, Delhi, dismissed the applications of the unsuccessful candidates (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) but allowed the application of another employee who had also been terminated. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then challenged this order before the High Court of Delhi, which set aside the CAT order, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement for the post of Chief General Manager and the power of the appointing authority to relax those conditions. There is no specific section of any statute mentioned in the judgment. The core issue is whether the relaxation of qualification criteria was valid and whether the subsequent cancellation of the appointment was justified.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appointing authority had relaxed the qualification criteria, and the appellant was duly appointed, completed probation, and was confirmed in service.
• The appellant resigned from her previous position at IDBI Bank to take up the appointment, and her services were terminated without any fault on her part.
• The appellant did not mislead anyone regarding her qualifications and had disclosed all relevant information.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The appellant did not meet the qualification criteria as per the advertisement.
• The relaxation of qualification criteria was not properly done and cannot be a deemed relaxation.
• The appointment was rightly cancelled because the appellant was ineligible for the post.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

• Whether the cancellation of the appellant’s appointment was justified, given that she had been appointed, confirmed, and had resigned from her previous job, despite the initial issue of qualification.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific case laws or legal provisions. The court primarily focused on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing the need for justice and equity.

Judgment

The Court did not rely on any specific authorities but rather on the unique circumstances of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by a sense of justice and fairness, given the specific circumstances of the case. The key factors that weighed in the mind of the Court were:

• The appellant’s appointment, confirmation, and subsequent termination without any fault on her part.
• The fact that the appellant had resigned from her previous job to join the new position.
• The absence of any evidence that the appellant had misled the appointing authority regarding her qualifications.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case (70%) than by strict legal considerations (30%).

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the legal point that relaxation of qualification should be based on proper application of mind, emphasized that justice needed to be done to the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant was made to resign from her post in IDBI, was found suitable for the post, and was confirmed in service. It was only after these events that action was taken to terminate her service. The Court also highlighted that there was no case that the appellant had misled anyone or not disclosed her actual qualifications.

The Court stated, “Having regard to the experience and the requirements of the post, it appears, the appointing authority, at the relevant time, thought it fit to appoint her in service, after requiring her to resign from the post she was holding elsewhere. Now, the appellant is neither here nor there.”

The Court also mentioned, “In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is an eminently fit case for doing complete justice between the parties.”

The Court further clarified, “Therefore, without treating it as a precedent and while agreeing with the question of law as raised by the respondents, we set aside the order dated 13.03.2014 cancelling the appointment of the appellant and the consequence of termination.”

Key Takeaways

• Employers cannot terminate an employee’s service after confirmation, simply because of a belated discovery that the employee did not meet the initial qualification criteria, especially when the employer had relaxed those criteria.
• The principle of equity and justice can outweigh strict adherence to rules in specific circumstances.
• Employers must act fairly and transparently in their dealings with employees.
• This judgment is specific to the facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for other cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the third respondent to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith. Her services were deemed to be continuous from the original date of appointment till the date of reinstatement, except for actual back wages.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the legal principle regarding relaxation of qualification criteria is valid, the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case may warrant the intervention of the court to ensure justice and equity. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but emphasizes the importance of fairness in employment matters.

Conclusion

In the case of Mamta Rohit vs. Dr. Prafulla Ranjan, the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the appellant, who had been terminated for not meeting the initial qualification criteria for the post of Chief General Manager. The Court emphasized that the appellant had been duly appointed, confirmed, and had resigned from her previous job. While agreeing with the legal principle that relaxation of qualification should be based on proper application of mind, the Court held that the specific facts of the case warranted intervention to ensure justice. The decision underscores the importance of fairness and equity in employment matters.