Termination Justified Where Appointment Was Secured On Basis Of Certificate From Unrecognised Board: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Junior T/Mate challenging his termination by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., holding that the employer was within its rights to end the services of a candidate who had secured employment on the basis of a matriculation certificate issued by a board not recognised by any competent authority. The Court observed that since the certificate formed a determinative component of the candidate's merit assessment, carrying up to 60 marks on a pro-rata basis, its invalidity rendered the appointment itself unsustainable.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the termination of his services by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. through an order dated 22.04.2021. The petitioner had applied for the post of Junior T/Mate pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2020 issued by the Board. After participating in the recruitment process, he was declared successful with 78.80 marks and placed at overall merit position 52. An appointment offer was issued on 08.03.2021 and the petitioner joined service on 16.03.2021.
During verification of documents, the authorities noticed a discrepancy relating to the petitioner’s matriculation certificate. The petitioner had stated in his application that he had passed matriculation in 2010 from the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi. Upon scrutiny, the competent authority found that the said Board was listed as a fake and unrecognized board by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. A show cause notice dated 08.04.2021 was issued asking the petitioner to explain the position.
In reply, the petitioner contended that there was no written notification issued by the State Government or the Electricity Board declaring the said Board as fake and requested clarification regarding recognition of educational boards of other States. The explanation was found unsatisfactory and the petitioner’s provisional joining was rejected, leading to termination of his appointment as Junior T/Mate.
The petitioner argued that the Board from which he obtained the certificate was duly recognized and that the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education had no authority to declare it unrecognized. It was also argued that the appointment was not based solely on the matriculation certificate. The respondents contended that the petitioner obtained employment on the strength of a certificate issued by a Board having no legal recognition and therefore the termination was justified.
The Court recorded that the recruitment advertisement made the marks obtained in the matriculation examination a significant component of the merit determination. The Court stated that “the merit of the candidate was to be evaluated out of 100 marks as provided in column No.4 thereof, which inter alia included 60 marks under the Head ‘Marks Obtained in Matric to be awarded on pro rata basis’.” The Court further stated that “the matriculation certificate was a prime consideration for appointment of a candidate and assessing the eligibility of the candidate for the appointment against the post and the marks obtained in the said certificate were determinative to the extent of 60 marks.”
Examining the certificate relied upon by the petitioner, the Court observed that the address of the Board mentioned in the memo of parties corresponded to Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The Court stated that “as it is the own holding out of the petitioner in terms of the address of respondent No.5 that Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, is the one at Uttam Nagar, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a contrary view.”
The Court considered the argument that the notification issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in 2015 could not affect a certificate issued in 2010. Addressing this contention, the Court stated that “the veracity of the certificate of the petitioner is shrouded with grave suspicion, not on the strength of Annexure P-10, but on the strength of Annexure R-4/A, which is a public notice issued by the Directorate of Education of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi… mentioning that respondent No.5 Institute was not recognized by the competent Authority to award 10+2 certificates.”
The Court also recorded that earlier notifications existed cautioning against such institutions. It stated that “Annexure R-4/B demonstrates that this notification was issued by the H.P Board of School Education earlier also in the year 1999.” The Court further recorded that “after Directorate of Education, New Delhi, issued public notice on 29.01.1999… notification dated 16.03.1999 was issued by the H.P Board of School Education to caution the students in Himachal.”
On the question of validity of the certificate used for employment, the Court stated that “as the petitioner had obtained the job on the strength of a matriculation certificate, which obviously cannot be termed as a valid certificate, the termination of the service of the petitioner cannot be held to be bad.”
The Court also addressed the allegation of violation of natural justice. It recorded that “the service of the petitioner was terminated after issuance of a show cause notice and after response was filed thereto by the petitioner.” The Court noted the sequence of events and stated that “chronology of events also demonstrates that the petitioner was offered appointment… he joined… and the show cause notice was issued… within the fortnight of his joining.”
Further, the Court referred to communication from the Directorate of Education of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi indicating that only certain boards were recognized. It recorded that “as far as the Directorate of Education… is concerned, there are only three Boards relevant for Delhi, i.e., Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) and National Institute of Open School (NIOS).” The Court concluded that “the Board from which the petitioner had obtained matriculation certificate in fact is a non-existing Board.”
The Court directed: “in view of the above discussion, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kunal Thakur, CGC; Ms. Anjli Soni Verma, Advocate
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: HHC:4992
Case Number: CWP No. 2908 of 2021
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
