Submission of forged educational certificates to overcome age-bar disqualifies employee from service despite prior experience.

The applicant was initially hired as a casual Female Attendant (MR) in September 1995.

After a brief termination and subsequent reinstatement by the Tribunal in 2002, she applied for the post of Civilian Lascar in 2011 following an advertisement in 'Employment News'.

She was selected and appointed on January 5, 2012.

During the verification process and following a third-party complaint, the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) informed the respondents that the educational documents submitted by the applicant were false.

Specifically, while her 1985 certificate recorded her date of birth as 16.11.1967, the 2002 certificate submitted for the Lascar post recorded it as 01.11.1986.

The respondents issued a Show Cause Notice on March 13, 2015, followed by a Memorandum of Charges on May 8, 2015, to initiate departmental inquiry.

The applicant challenged these notices, claiming the documents were either genuine or manufactured by others without her knowledge.

1. Whether the applicant submitted forged/false educational documents and date of birth records to secure appointment to the post of Civilian Lascar

2. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice and Memorandum of Charges issued by the respondents are liable to be quashed

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the jurisdiction to review administrative actions.

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 19.05.1993, which mandates taking action against government servants who are later found to be ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment due to false information.

Principle of estoppel against the applicant, noting that a beneficiary of a certificate is responsible for its veracity.

The Tribunal examined the discrepancy between the two HSLC certificates. It noted that the 1985 certificate placed the applicant's birth in 1967, whereas the 2002 certificate and the Attestation Form signed by her in 2011 claimed a birth year of 1986.

The court reasoned that the applicant was the sole beneficiary of this discrepancy; had she provided her true age (approximately 44-45 years in 2011), she would have been ineligible for the post, which had a maximum age limit of 25 years.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's plea of ignorance regarding the fabrication, holding that as the person who signed the attestation form and accepted the employment based on those documents, she is legally liable.

The verification report from SEBA confirming the documents as "false" provided sufficient prima facie grounds for the authorities to proceed with the inquiry.

The Court declined to interfere with the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2015 or the Memorandum dated 08.05.2015, dismissed the Original Application, and allowed the departmental inquiry to proceed.