Delhi High Court: A petition was filed challenging order dated 12-11-2024 whereby she has been terminated from service and is seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing her employer to reinstate her to the post of Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)-Legal, with all consequential benefits. Manoj Jain, J., quashed the termination order dated 12-11-2024 and held that since the petitioner continues in service, she shall be deemed to have uninterrupted service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner, a law graduate enrolled in 2011, challenged her termination from the post of Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)—Legal at the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), a statutory body, working under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. She joined BIS in September 2021 after being selected through a competitive process. Her performance was consistently rated excellent in her APARs, and she had even applied for the post of Director (Legal). However, BIS issued her a show cause notice in April 2022 alleging concealment of facts and questioning her eligibility, particularly her work-experience certificates. Despite her replies and clarifications, BIS terminated her services in November 2024, stating she had furnished false information and was ineligible.
The petitioner argued that she had never misrepresented her qualifications or experience, that the Secretary of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs had categorically held she fulfilled the eligibility criteria, and that the termination was mala fide, motivated by her having filed a sexual harassment (POSH) complaint. She emphasized that BIS had scrutinized her documents before offering her appointment, and she had already acquired the requisite three years’ experience while serving in BIS itself. Reliance was placed on precedents such as M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar, (1993) 3 SCC 591; Varinder Hans v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1343 and Sarabjeet Kaur Dhaliwal v. Punjab Agricultural University, 2003 SCC OnLine P&H 1722 where courts protected employees who, though initially short of formal requirements, had subsequently acquired experience and against whom no misrepresentation was found.
The Union of India and BIS contended that she was on probation, had no vested right to continue, and was ineligible as her experience was not “in” an autonomous body but merely “for” IEC University as a panel advocate. They argued there was no violation of natural justice since she had replied to the show cause notice and was given a personal hearing. They relied on precedents affirming that probationers can be discharged without stigma if found unsuitable.
The Court noted that the minimum eligibility criterion prescribed in the advertisement was a Bachelor’s degree in Law and three years’ experience in the relevant field in a government or autonomous body. Since the petitioner undisputedly had a law degree, her omission to disclose her LLM qualification could not be treated as concealment. The Court remarked that ideally she should have disclosed it, but her non-disclosure did not amount to misrepresentation, though it raised questions as to how she simultaneously pursued a regular LLM in Mumbai while residing in Jaipur.
The Court observed that the crucial words in the advertisement were “experience in” a governmental or autonomous body. Thus, stressing the emphasis on “in,” the Court said that working for an organisation as a lawyer cannot be equated with working in that organisation as an employee. The Court remarked that had BIS intended to include practicing advocates representing such bodies, the advertisement would have expressly stated so. Therefore, the Court concluded that technically, the petitioner did not satisfy the strict experience requirement.
The Court then noted that the BIS Executive Committee, exercising powers under Regulation 13 of the BIS Recruitment Regulations, 2020, had interpreted the experience condition restrictively and held that the petitioner, being an empanelled advocate for IEC University (a private university), did not meet the eligibility. The Court further observed that this recommendation was approved by the Central Government, following which the termination order was issued. However, the Court found fault in the process, remarking that the petitioner was never given an opportunity to represent her case before the Executive Committee, rendering the decision one-sided and violative of natural justice.
The Court observed that while the technical requirement of experience may not have been met initially, the petitioner had never submitted false or fabricated certificates. On the contrary, the certificates from the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association and IEC University only confirmed that she was a practicing advocate. The Court remarked that BIS was aware of this fact from the very beginning, yet chose to appoint her after scrutiny, and could not later reopen the matter unless the documents were shown to be forged.
The Court noted that the BIS had kept the issue alive unnecessarily for four years, despite the petitioner’s candidature being approved by a five-member selection committee after thorough deliberation. The Court observed that the petitioner consistently described herself as an advocate and had not misled the authorities. Therefore, the Court held that BIS itself was responsible for the predicament by misinterpreting the criterion and yet allowing her to join.
The Court also observed that during her service, the petitioner received outstanding APAR gradings, her integrity remained unquestioned, and she had already acquired three years’ experience in BIS itself. Referring to precedents like M.S. Mudhol (supra), the Court remarked that once an employee has been appointed without misrepresentation and has subsequently acquired the requisite experience, termination on technical grounds of initial eligibility would be inequitable.
The Court further observed that termination of a probationer generally carries an element of stigma, since it implies unsuitability or misconduct. In this case, the Court found that BIS had attributed suppression and ineligibility to the petitioner, which amounted to stigma. The Court remarked that termination based on the same material earlier accepted by the employer, without affording a fresh opportunity to the petitioner, was unjust and stigmatic.
The Court, therefore, held that the petitioner’s termination was not legally sustainable and concluded that since she had by now acquired the requisite experience and her performance was exemplary, there was no justification for her removal.
[XX v. UOI, W.P.(C) 9931/2025, decided on 27-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.K. Mannan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rana S. Biswas, Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPCUOI, Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vidhi Gupta (GP) for R-1/UOI, Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Ms. Parthvi Ahuja, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Mr. Bhaskar Agarwal, Mr. Shrey Patnaik, Mr. Ritwik Batra and Ms. Mitali Karwa, Advocates for R-2 & R-3
