Termination for failing to obtain a qualification by an impossible deadline is arbitrary and unsustainable.

The applicant, who had worked as a casual labourer in the respondents’ department, applied pursuant to a 2012 recruitment notification for appointment as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS).

After qualifying the selection process, he was appointed as Trainee MTS with effect from 16 December 2013, subject to the condition that he would acquire the Class X qualification from a recognised Board or National Open School within two years of appointment, failing which his services could be terminated.

Since the academic session had already commenced when he was appointed, he enrolled for Class IX in 2014–15 and appeared in the Class X examination during 2015–16.

Although he was unsuccessful in some subjects in the main examination, he passed the compartmental examination conducted in October 2016.

The National Institute of Open Schooling issued his result/certificate on 19 May 2017, which he submitted to the department on 5 June 2017.

The respondents terminated his services on 28 June 2017, relying on a Headquarters’ direction dated 23 June 2017, on the ground that he had not acquired the Class X qualification within two years from 16 December 2013, i.e. by 16 December 2015.

His representation dated 12 July 2017 was rejected on 9 October 2017.

The applicant challenged the termination and rejection orders and sought reinstatement, continuity of service, consequential benefits and arrears of pay.

Whether the applicant had failed to satisfy the appointment condition requiring him to acquire the Class X qualification within two years of appointment, so as to justify termination of his services?

Whether the respondents could validly treat 16 December 2015 as the absolute deadline where completion of the relevant academic course and examination was not practically possible by that date?

Whether the applicant was entitled to quashing of the termination and rejection orders and to reinstatement with consequential service benefits?

The Tribunal applied the express condition in the appointment order requiring acquisition of the Class X qualification from a recognised Board or National Open School within two years of appointment, failing which the services were liable to termination.

It also noted that the appointment was temporary and governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, including Rule 5, although the decision principally turned on the interpretation and application of the educational-qualification condition.

The Tribunal applied the general legal principle that an administrative condition cannot be interpreted or enforced in a manner that imposes an impossible requirement, and that termination founded on such an interpretation would be arbitrary, whimsical and unsustainable.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was required to obtain the Class X qualification within two years, but held that the period could not mechanically be treated as expiring on 16 December 2015.

It took judicial notice that academic sessions for Class IX and Class X ordinarily commence around April or July and that no relevant academic session would ordinarily be available in December immediately following the applicant’s appointment.

Consequently, completion of the Class X qualification by 16 December 2015 was practically impossible because the relevant academic session concluded only in 2016.

The applicant had enrolled at the earliest available opportunity, appeared in the Class X examination during the 2015–16 session and subsequently passed the compartmental examination in that same academic session.

Since the delay in issuance of the certificate was attributable to the examining authority and not to any inaction by the applicant, the Tribunal held that the respondents’ interpretation of the appointment condition was arbitrary and could not sustain termination, particularly when the applicant had acquired the requisite qualification before the termination order was passed.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant as Trainee MTS, subject to his furnishing the required documents along with a copy of the judgment within 15 days; the respondents were to pass the reinstatement order within two months of receiving them.

His service was directed to be treated as continuous from the date on which he had joined service, but without back wages.

He was granted other consequential service benefits, subject to verification of the authenticity and validity of his certificates and documents.

No order as to costs was made.