Termination Upheld for Misuse of Age Relaxation in Government Appointment

Introduction

In a consequential judgment with wide implications for public sector employment jurisprudence, the High Court of Tripura in Sri Pintu Chowdhury v. Union of India dismissed a writ appeal challenging the termination of a government employee who had secured appointment by availing an ineligible age relaxation. The Court held that a candidate employed in a society registered under the Societies Registration Act does not qualify as a “government servant” for the purpose of age relaxation in central government recruitment. The ruling underscores the principle that fraud or misrepresentation in securing employment renders the appointment voidable, regardless of subsequent service duration.

1. Factual Background and Procedural History

• Appellant’s prior service: Pintu Chowdhury was initially employed as a Craft Teacher under the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWREIS), an autonomous body under the State’s Tribal Welfare Department.
• Central recruitment: He responded to a 2015 recruitment notification issued by the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, for the post of Junior Weaver, availing a 10-year age relaxation meant for “government servants”.
• He submitted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from TTWREIS and was selected.
• Appointment: He was appointed in January 2016 as Junior Weaver in the Weaver’s Service Centre, Agartala, and his appointment was treated as regular and permanent.
• Complaint and inquiry: A complaint was lodged by a third party alleging misuse of age relaxation. The Ministry of Textiles sought clarification and received confirmation from both TTWREIS and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) that TTWREIS is not a government department, and its employees are not government servants.
• Termination: Based on this finding, Chowdhury’s appointment was terminated on 16.11.2021.
• He challenged the termination via WP(C) No. 854 of 2021, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. He then filed WA No. 69 of 2022, which is the subject of this decision.

2. Identification of Legal Issues

1. Whether an employee of TTWREIS can be treated as a “government servant” under Rule 2(h) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules), for the purpose of age relaxation in Central Government recruitment.
2. Whether the principle of estoppel or equity could protect an appointment obtained by misrepresentation.
3. Whether the concept of “lien” applied to allow reinstatement in the earlier post under TTWREIS.

3. Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Pintu Chowdhury):

• Claimed eligibility for age relaxation based on his employment with TTWREIS and the NOC issued by it.
• Argued that his appointment was made after full disclosure and that the Union was estopped from later disputing his eligibility.
• Sought reinstatement either as Junior Weaver or in his prior role as Craft Teacher under TTWREIS on equitable grounds, invoking the concept of “lien”.

Union of India (Respondents 1–5):

• Argued that the appointment was dehors the rules, as age relaxation was only applicable to civil servants, not employees of societies or autonomous bodies.
• Asserted that TTWREIS, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, did not confer government servant status.
• Relied on Rule 2(h) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and clarifications from the DoPT.
• Argued that the appointment was obtained by misrepresentation, and hence, termination was justified.

State of Tripura & TTWREIS (Respondents 6–8):

• Confirmed that TTWREIS is an autonomous society, not a government department.
• Stated that Chowdhury’s post of Craft Teacher was abolished after his resignation.
• Opposed any claim for reinstatement or lien in the prior post.

4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

i. Ineligibility for Age Relaxation under Rule 2(h)

The Court held that:

• Age relaxation under the relevant recruitment rules applies only to civil posts under the Union or State, as defined in Rule 2(h) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
• TTWREIS is a registered society, not a government department. Its employees, therefore, do not hold civil posts and are ineligible for age relaxation meant for government servants.

ii. Doctrine of Estoppel and Misrepresentation

• The Court rejected the appellant’s argument of estoppel, citing that:
  
  “Appointment secured by misrepresentation cannot create estoppel against the employer.”

• The appointment was conditional upon proof of government service, which was not satisfied.
• It was held that any appointment obtained by suppression or false declaration is voidable, and its continuation does not confer legitimacy.

iii. Rejection of Lien Argument

• The Court held that lien applies only to civil posts held under the Government.
• Since the post under TTWREIS was not a civil post, no lien could be retained.
• Moreover, upon substantive appointment to a new post, the lien over the earlier post automatically lapses.

iv. Reliance on Precedents

• The Court relied on Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Seema Kapoor (2021), where it was held that age relaxation is not available to employees of autonomous bodies.
• It also referred to State of Rajasthan v. S.N. Tiwari (2009) and Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P. (1992) to reiterate that lien and appointment principles are applicable only to government servants.

5. Final Conclusion and Holding

• The writ appeal was dismissed.
• The Court upheld the termination of the appellant from the post of Junior Weaver.
• It held that:
  
  “Appointment based on ineligible age relaxation due to misrepresentation of employment status is legally unsustainable.”

• The interim relief that had allowed the appellant to continue working under TTWREIS was vacated, and no relief was granted for reinstatement.

FAQs:

1. Can age relaxation in government jobs be claimed by society employees?

No. Age relaxation is typically available only to civil servants holding posts under the Union or State government, not employees of societies or autonomous bodies.

2. Does misrepresentation during job application justify termination later?

Yes. If a candidate misrepresents material facts like eligibility or prior service status, the employer can legally terminate the appointment, even after years of service.

3. Is lien available to employees moving from a society to a government job?

No. Lien under service law applies only to holders of civil posts under the government. Society employees do not qualify.

4. What is Rule 2(h) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?

It defines a “government servant” as someone holding a civil post under the Union or a State, and is key to determining service protections and benefits.

5. Can equity override service rules in public employment disputes?

Generally not. Courts rarely grant equitable relief when appointments are obtained through misrepresentation or when statutory service conditions are not met.

Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.

Disclaimer

The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.