Neeraj Kumar v. Union of India

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.1153/2018. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner/applicant, wherein he had assailed action of the respondent in rejecting his candidature for the post of Nursing Orderly.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has rejected the O.A without appreciating that even though in his application for appointment to the aforesaid post, the petitioner had mentioned only about his experience between 18.04.2009 to 06.05.2011, with one M/s Shakurpur Medical Centre, in respect whereof he had submitted an experience certificate dated 10.05.2011, he had at the time of document verification, submitted a further experience certificate from Nirmal Hospital where he had worked for a period between 10.04.2013 to 09.04.2015. He submits that both these certificates were verified by the respondents, whereupon it was found that the certificate from Shakurpur Medical Centre could not be verified as the said medical centre had been closed by the time the verification was carried out but the certificate from Nirmal Hospital was found to be correct. He, therefore, contends that once it was found that the petitioner’s claim that he had the experience of working as a Nursing Orderly in Nirmal Hospital for more than one year, he ought to have been granted appointment on the basis of this experience certificate which was admittedly verified.

3. On the other hand, Ms. Sonam Anand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner, having not mentioned about his purported experience with the Nirmal Hospital in his application form which was submitted on 22.12.2015, the respondents were justified in ignoring the experience certificate issued by the Nirmal Hospital. The petitioner has given no justifiable explanation for not mentioning about his employment with the Nirmal Hospital between 10.04.2013 to 09.04.2015, while submitting the form on 22.12.2015. She, thus, contends that the petitioner’s claim of having worked in the Nirmal Hospital is clearly an afterthought and has rightly not been accepted by the learned Tribunal. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be apposite to note the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record.

5. Upon an advertisement being issued by the respondent no.2 in 2015, inviting applications for filling up 220 vacancies of Paramedical and Nursing Staff in ESI Hospital, Haryana Region, the petitioner on 22.12.2015 submitted his application under the SC category for the post of Nursing Orderly. In his application form, the petitioner under the column ‘experience’ referred to only his work experience with Shakurpur Medical Centre between 18.04.2009 to 06.05.2011

6. After the petitioner qualified in the written examination he was called to the office of the Superintendent of respondent no.3 for verification of documents on 31.03.2017. It was at this stage that the petitioner along with his certificate dated 10.05.2011 from Shakarpur Medical Centre submitted an additional experience certificate from Nirmal Hospital wherein, he claimed to have worked between 10.04.2013 to 09.04.2015.

7. It transpires that both the aforesaid experience certificates were from Shakurpur Medical Centre could not be verified as the said Medical centre stood closed but the certificate from Nirmal Hospital was upon verification found to be correct. However, the respondent, upon realizing that the petitioner’s purported experience from Nirmal Hospital was not mentioned in the application form, decided to ignore this experience certificate and proceeded to reject his candidature on the premise that his experience certificate from Shakurpur Medical Centre could not be verified. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal, which has, vide the impugned order rejected the petitioner’s claim by observing as under:

8. Having perused the aforesaid extract of the impugned judgment, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the subsequent experience certificate from Nirmal Hospital, which was furnished by the petitioner for the first time during document verification, could not be taken into account. The very fact that the petitioner, despite having filled up the form as late as on 22.12.2015, chose not to mention about his purported experience with Nirmal Hospital between 10.04.2013 to 09.04.2015, was in itself sufficient to create a doubt about this certificate having been obtained from a private hospital. Even before us, the petitioner has no valid justification for not even mentioning about his experience with Nirmal Hospital in the application form, especially when the said experience pertained to a period just before filling up of the form. We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the respondent that this certificate was submitted by the petitioner by way of an afterthought and could therefore not be accepted.

9. From the impugned order, we also find that while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, the learned Tribunal has relied on its earlier decision dated 30.01.2019 in O.A no. 3429/2016 titled Mohan Kumar vs. Director General, ESI & Anr wherein in similar circumstances, an experience certificate not mentioned in the application form was disregarded. This decision of the learned Tribunal was unsuccessfully assailed before this Court by way of W.P.(C) NO. 4341/2019, which was dismissed on 16.07.2019. Having perused the said decision, we find no reason to take a different view in the present case.

10. In the light of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR)

JUDGE JANUARY 31, 2024