Case Law Details
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research Vs Shri. D. Ganesan (Madras High Court)
Facts- The short question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent who has admittedly submitted a fake/ false certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) Community, though the 1st respondent admittedly belonged to Back ward Class (BC) and thereby enjoying relaxation by 5 years of the upper age limit in terms of the advertisement calling for applications for appointment as Trainee in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as “BARC”) under the In-plant Training Programme vitiates and renders entire process of appointment as void.
Conclusion- The Applicant was 24 years old at the time of applying for the post and hence, was not eligible to compete under BC category. In view of that, he had suppressed the community and submitted the application as if he belongs to SC/ST Community, availed the benefit of 5 years and entered the job. Thus, it is clear that the Applicant was overage and did not fall within the eligibility criteria and therefore, the initial appointment obtained on the basis of relaxation of age itself is bad, which is a clear ground to deprive the entire benefits due to the Applicant.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent who has admittedly submitted a fake/ false certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) Community, though the 1st respondent admittedly belonged to Back ward Class (BC) and thereby enjoying relaxation by 5 years of the upper age limit in terms of the advertisement calling for applications for appointment as Trainee in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as “BARC”) under the In-plant Training Programme vitiates and renders entire process of appointment as void.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
