Deepak Vashisht Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Upholds Termination of Auditor Appointed on Basis of Unrecognized Degree
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Auditor whose appointment was based on a degree obtained from an institution that lacked the requisite recognition during the relevant academic period. The Court held that absence of the prescribed educational qualification strikes at the root of eligibility and cannot be cured merely because the employee continued in service under an interim order.
Introduction
In Deepak Vashisht v. Union of India & Others, the petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, which had upheld the termination of his services as an Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General, Telangana.
The central issue before the Court was whether a candidate appointed on the basis of a degree that was not recognized during the relevant period could continue in government service merely because he had worked for several years under interim judicial protection.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was appointed as an Auditor pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the office of the Principal Accountant General.
During certificate verification:
- The petitioner relied upon a Bachelor of Arts degree obtained from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Rajasthan.
- The authorities found that the institution did not possess the necessary recognition from the competent authorities during the academic session 2008–2011, when the petitioner pursued the course.
- The petitioner had himself requested a provisional appointment, undertaking that if verification revealed the qualification was not recognized, his services could be terminated.
Accordingly:
- A provisional appointment order was issued on 08.02.2016.
- The appointment order specifically provided that if the educational certificates were found not to be genuine or recognized, the services could be terminated without further notice.
- Subsequently, the petitioner’s services were terminated through Office Order No. 44 dated 01.06.2016.
The petitioner challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on 03.07.2025, leading to the present writ petition.
