IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WPCT 3 of 2026 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Firoz Alam For the appellants :- Mr. Sudipto Majumdar, DSGI Mr. Ajay Kumar Singhania, Adv. For the respondent :- Mr. P.C. Das, Adv. Heard on :- 09.07.2026 Judgment on :- 10.07.2026 Uploaded on :- 10.07.2026 Amrita Sinha, J.:- 1. The Union of India and the officials of the Department of Posts have filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench on 25th November, 2025 in the Original Application filed by the respondent being OA No. 350/266/2022, MA No. 350/456/2023 (Firoz Alam vs. Union of India & Ors.). 2. By the said order the learned Tribunal was pleased to quash and set aside the charge memorandum issued against the respondent herein putting him ‘off-duty’. The Tribunal restored appointment of the respondent and further directed that the period during which the respondent was off-duty, shall be treated as ‘spent on duty’ and be 2 granted consequential benefit. The Tribunal was, however, pleased to direct that the respondent will not be entitled to back wages for the said period. 3. The facts of the case lie in a very small compass. 4. An advertisement was floated by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar division on 8th October, 2013 inviting applications in prescribed format from eligible/ suitable candidates for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Khattimari Extra Departmental Branch Post Office. 5. One of the eligibility conditions required to be fulfilled by the candidates was that the candidate must be minimum eighteen years of age as on the last date of receipt of applications. 6. The respondent applied in response to the said advertisement and an order of provisional engagement was issued in his favour on 30th January, 2014. The engagement letter clearly mentioned that the engagement shall be a nature of contract and liable to be terminated by either of the parties by notifying in writing and his service and conduct shall be governed by GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time. The engagement was provisional subject to verification of character and antecedents through the proper channel. 7. By a communication dated 04/05th January, 2022, the Superintendent of Post Offices sought for an explanation from the respondent as to why disciplinary action will not be taken against him for gross irregularity. It was mentioned that he declared his date of birth as 15th November, 1996, which means that he was below eighteen years of age at the time of filing the application, and therefore, not entitled to get appointment as per the GDS Recruitment Rule. The attestation form dated 26th January, 2014 submitted by him, certified his age as eighteen years which was an untrue statement. 3 8. The respondent replied to the show cause on 7th January, 2022 admitting that on the day he filed the application he was not eighteen years of age. 9. Relying on the aforesaid reply, a memorandum dated 2nd February, 2022 was issued to the respondent proposing to hold an enquiry in terms of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020. By an order dated 3rd February, 2022 the respondent was intimated that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him and he was put ‘off-duty’ with immediate effect. The respondent was directed not to leave the headquarters without obtaining previous permission from the Superintendent of Post Offices. 10. Challenging the order of put-off, the respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal being OA No. 350/266/2022 which was heard and disposed of and the order passed therein on 25th November, 2025 is impugned herein. 11. Specific case made out by the petitioners is that, as the respondent admitted that he was less than eighteen years of age on the date of filing the application for engagement and also on the date of issuance of the provisional engagement letter, accordingly, the authority contemplated initiating disciplinary proceeding against the respondent. In the absence of any order passed in the disciplinary proceeding, the learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained the application of the respondent. 12. It has been submitted that the authority has the right to initiate disciplinary proceeding against any employee if a false declaration is relied upon by the said employee for the purpose of obtaining engagement. 13. It has been contended that public employment has to be strictly in accordance with the recruitment notice. Any incumbent, who does not meet the minimum eligibility 4 criteria prescribed for engagement, ought not to be engaged, as the same would be contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. It has been argued that the Tribunal has practically curtailed and infringed upon the right of the employer to take disciplinary action against an errant employee and directed restoring appointment to an employee who was ineligible for being engaged. 15. Learned advocate representing the appellants relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Yadav vs. state of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 280 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that the rigours of Articles 14 & 16 are not ignored by the State in relation to the matters concerning public employment. 16. It has been argued that the petitioners, being ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, would be bound to abide by the Constitution of India and it would be absolutely improper for the petitioners to engage any person contrary to the provisions of law. 17. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 25th November, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal. 18. Learned advocate representing the respondent opposes the submission and prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the respondent did not suppress any material fact and did not have any mala fide intention at the time of applying for the subject post. If the respondent had any intention to distort facts, he could have misquoted his date of birth. He, on good faith, disclosed his actual date of birth at the time of making application. 19. The respondent contends that it was the duty of the authority to verify all records prior to issuing the engagement letter. The authority issued the engagement letter in his favour and permitted him to serve in the said post for eight long years. As there was no 5 fault on the part of the respondent, accordingly, the authority ought not to be permitted to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. 20. It has been argued that the action of the authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent would be barred by limitation as there has been enough delay in detecting the error on the part of the authority. No steps have been taken by the petitioners against the officer(s) who were responsible for verifying the details disclosed by a job aspirant in his application seeking engagement. 21. The petitioners ought not to take any coercive measure against the respondent for the negligence and carelessness on the part of their officer(s). The service which the respondent is rendering is his only source of livelihood. His bread and butter ought not to be snatched away for no fault on his part. 22. It has been stressed that the balance of convenience and inconvenience rests entirely in favour of the respondent. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly posed a question that the entry made by the respondent in his declaration form was enough for the concerned official to question the respondent’s eligibility before appointing him to the post. The same was not done. 23. It has been highlighted that the learned Tribunal took note of the negligence and carelessness on the part of the officer(s) responsible for selection and appointment at multiple stages during the process and such mistake cannot be ignored. 24. It has been pointed out that the learned Tribunal took note of the explanation provided by the respondent in the reply to the show cause that he erroneously filled the attestation form due to ignorance on his part. Taking note of the conduct of the respondent, the Tribunal took a liberal view in the matter, more so, because the respondent belongs to a backward community with a rural background. 6 25. In support of the submission that disciplinary proceeding ought not to be permitted to be initiated after eight years of engagement, learned advocate for the respondent relies on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh & Anr. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 wherein the Court held that as there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with. 26. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition with a further direction upon the petitioners to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 27. We have heard and considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials on record. 28. The matter relates to engagement in and by an authority that qualifies the definition ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. The engagement notice dated 8th October, 2013 clearly prescribed the eligibility conditions required to be fulfilled by a candidate applying for the subject post. The first eligibility criterion to be fulfilled was that, the candidate must be minimum eighteen years of age on the last date of receipt of the applications. 29. The respondent has, in no uncertain terms, admitted that he was below eighteen years of age on the date of filing the application and also on the date of issuance of the letter of provisional engagement. The learned Tribunal noticed the fact that the respondent was under-aged and ineligible for engagement in terms of the recruitment notice. Despite noticing the same, the learned Tribunal took a lenient view as the respondent belongs to a backward community with a rural background. 30. The Tribunal opined that the respondent may have committed an error in declaring his age and such error was without any mala fide intention. Surprisingly, the 7 Tribunal failed to notice that, any candidate who is a minor and not attained majority by attaining eighteen years, is ineligible for engagement in any Government job. The respondent is not an illiterate person. He must have passed his class 10- Madhyamik Examination, as matriculation or equivalent examination was the minimum educational qualification required for applying for the post. 31. The Tribunal, instead of adjudicating the issue raised in the Origination Application challenging the put-off duty notice, misdirected itself and questioned the action of the petitioners in not verifying the eligibility of the candidate prior to issuance of the engagement letter. 32. The Tribunal missed the fact that, whether disciplinary proceeding will be initiated against any erring officer responsible for selection and engagement of a candidate who does not fulfil the minimum eligibility criterion, is an absolute different issue. The same cannot be a ground to perpetuate or legalize any act which was illegal on the day of its inception. Assuming, action is taken against the careless and negligent officer(s) of the selection and engagement committee, the same will not legalize the illegality committed in engaging a candidate ineligible for engagement. 33. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated that, disciplinary proceeding was yet to be initiated against the respondent. The order of put-off duty with immediate effect, in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, was impugned before the Tribunal. It is well within the right of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceeding against any employee on the ground(s) available in the service rule. The learned Tribunal ought not to have restricted or curtailed the right of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceeding as and when the illegality is detected. 34. The Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that, the post in which the respondent was serving was governed by GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time and the engagement letter was provisional subject to 8 verification of character and antecedents through proper channel. At the time of verification of the details disclosed by the respondent at the time of filing his application form for engagement, it was detected that the respondent was under-aged on the day of making the application. The process of verification may take some time. The delay in detecting the illegality will in no manner create a right in favour of the respondent to hold on to a job which was offered to him erroneously. 35. There may not have been any deliberate or mala fide intention on the part of the respondent at the time of filling the application form for engagement, but at the same time, it cannot be denied that the respondent was well aware that he was ineligible to apply for engagement in terms of the conditions prescribed in the recruitment notice. The respondent may have taken a chance by submitting his application and by gross negligence on the part of the recruiting authority, he was issued the engagement letter. A genuine candidate lost the opportunity to secure the job as engagement letter was issued to the respondent who is an ineligible candidate. The respondent was paid remuneration from the State exchequer even though he was not eligible to receive such payment. 36. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there may have been several other similarly placed under-aged job aspirants from the backward community with rural background who could have applied for the subject post, but for the age restriction, refrained from applying. If any benefit of age is given to the respondent, the same would be hit by the principles of equality and equal opportunity to be considered for a job as prescribed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 37. In Amrit Yadav (supra) the Court relied upon several previous decisions of the Court and clearly held that public employment is a duty entrusted by the Constitution of India with the State. The Court took note of the precedents laid down that where the appointment letter issued to a candidate is a nullity, then affording opportunity to the incumbent would be a mere formality. 9 38. In the instant case, the employer contemplated initiating disciplinary proceeding against an employee, who was engaged despite being ineligible. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the employer to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding to reach the same to its logical conclusion. The Tribunal ought not to have decided the issue at the preliminary stage of issuance of put-off duty notice. 39. In Bani Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter relating to seniority and promotion where the Court was of the opinion that promotion to a higher grade cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary proceeding. Such is not the case here. The facts of Bani Singh (supra) are different and the law laid down in the said matter cannot be made applicable in the present case. 40. It is settled law that if the initial appointment is illegal, the same does not get legalised with passage of time. An employee, who has been engaged illegally, cannot claim a right to hold on to the post, as the same would amount to continuing with the illegality. It may have been that, the respondent was able to procure the engagement letter by hoodwinking the officer(s) of the selection and engagement committee. The same is a matter of enquiry to be conducted by the employer to ascertain proper facts and take appropriate legal action against the errant officer(s). Prior to reaching such stage, the learned Tribunal prejudged the issue and passed order for restoring appointment to the respondent. 41. The Tribunal failed to notice that the appointment of the respondent was not interfered with by the employer. Hence, the question of restoring appointment does not arise. 42. In view of the discussions made herein above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal misappreciated the facts of the case and arrived at an erroneous finding which is absolutely contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence. The sympathy and leniency shown by the Tribunal to the respondent who 10 was able to obtain the job even though he was ineligible for the same, is wholly misplaced. There is hardly any scope and/or opportunity to show sympathy or leniency to an incumbent participating in a public recruitment process. 43. In these hard days of unemployment, there is cut throat competition at all stages of a public recruitment process. The recruiting authority ought to be extremely careful and cautious at the time of scrutinizing and verifying the application form filled by the job aspirants and ensure that the process remains transparent, free and fair. Several unwanted litigations can be avoided if the recruitment process is conducted in accordance with law, without showing any favour to any candidate. 44. Cases like the one at hand would not have arisen had the authority verified the application for engagement minutely at the very first stage. Laxity and casual attitude of the authority are solely responsible for generating such type of litigations. Strict legal action ought to be taken against officer(s) for whom the State has to bear huge litigation charges to defend themselves. 45. The impugned order of the learned Tribunal is, accordingly, set aside. It will be open for the petitioners to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, as contemplated, strictly in accordance with law. 46. No costs. 47. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.) I agree. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)