Recently, the Karnataka High Court has nullified the termination order of a typist employed at the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Davanagere. The termination was based on allegations of providing inaccurate information about her husband's profession during the selection process.

The bench headed by Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, granted the petition and issued a directive for the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner to the Typist position. The order also permits her to resume her duties without delay.

The bench emphasized that the occupation of the petitioner's husband held no bearing on assessing her own qualifications. It was acknowledged that the petitioner rightfully secured the Typist position based on her individual merit. Her appointment was evidently not influenced or based on her husband's profession.

The petitioner applied for the typist position following a notification that required applicants to disclose their marital status. In compliance, the petitioner mentioned her married status in her application.

The petitioner asserted her eligibility based on merit and highlighted her appointment following the notification dated 21.12.2022. As she claimed appointment under a reserved category, her caste certificate underwent scrutiny by the Caste Verification Committee, which later confirmed its authenticity.

The petitioner argued that despite mentioning her husband's employment at the public prosecutor's office in Shivamogga when requesting a transfer, the Principal District and Sessions Judge believed that during the interview, she had falsely claimed her husband was a vegetable vendor. This discrepancy led to the accusation of providing false information.

The petitioner countered by providing a response clarifying that she had indeed informed the Principal District and Sessions Judge about her husband's employment in the Public Prosecutor's office, while also mentioning that her parents were involved in vegetable vending. However, despite this clarification, the Judge concluded that the petitioner had withheld crucial information during the interview about her husband's occupation. This led to a verdict of misconduct, resulting in the decision that she was not eligible to continue in her role as a Typist.

After reviewing the records, the bench deemed the challenged order as unsustainable or not justifiable.

The court highlighted that the specifics of what occurred during the interview were not documented, making it impossible to verify the personal information claimed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, the court expressed reluctance to accept the Judge's assertion at face value. Particularly, considering the petitioner's denial of having informed the Judge that her husband was working as a vegetable vendor, there was ambiguity about the accuracy of the alleged false statement during the interview.

The Bench observed that the initial application for the Typist position did not mandate the petitioner to disclose her husband's occupation. As a result, the Bench emphasized that the profession of an applicant's spouse cannot serve as either a qualification or a disqualification for the role of a Typist.

The investigation revealed that the petitioner had verified her personal details with the Caste Verification Committee. This confirmation indicated that her husband was employed as a First Division Assistant in the Government, contradicting the reasoning provided by the trial courts. Consequently, the trial court's rationale was dismissed or deemed invalid in light of this verified information.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Appearance: Advocate Manjunath Rao Bhonsle for Petitioner

Advocate Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda for Respondent.

Case Title: Anitha H And Principal District and Session Judge

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12609 OF 2023