IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18157 of 2025

======================================================

1.The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication,

Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001.

2.The Director Postal Department, Bihar Circle, GPO, Patna- 800001.

3.The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001.

4.The Post Master General, Regional Office, Bhagalpur, 812001.

5.The Superintendent, Post Office- Begusarai Division, Begusarai- 851101.

6.The Inspector of Post, East Sub-Division- Begusarai Division, Begusarai-

851101.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Shreya Daughter of Late Chaitanya Bharti and Wife of Sonu Babu Resident of

Village- Ramdiri, Police Station- Matihani, District- Begusarai (Bihar).

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Kumar Ravish, CGC

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date: 03-04-2026

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 19.08.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative

Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.

CAT”) in O.A. No. 050/00164/2025, whereby and whereunder

the covering letter dated 7.2.2025 along with its enclosure i.e.

the letter of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Begusarai

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

2/27

Division, Begusarai dated 6.2.2025, by which the engagement

of the respondent herein as Gramin Dak Sevak (hereinafter

referred to as “the GDS”) had been terminated, have been

quashed and the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the

respondent with all consequential benefits within a period of 60

days of the date of receipt of the said order dated 19.08.2025.

2.The brief facts of the case as pleaded by the sole

respondent in the original application filed by her before the Ld.

CAT is that the Department of Posts, Ministry of

Communications, Government of India, New Delhi had issued

an advertisement / notification dated 12.7.2024, inviting

applications from the eligible candidates to fill the vacant posts

of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs) in different offices of the

Department of Posts. The relevant clauses of the said

advertisement dt. 12.7.2024 are being reproduced herein below:-

“Clause 3. SERVICE CONDITIONS AND BRIEF JOB

PROFILE AND RESIDENCE/ACCOMMODATION.

The applicants must clearly understand that the GDSs

are not regular employees of the Department and their

emoluments, allowances and other entitlements are not at

par with the Central Government employees. Their

service conditions are governed by Department of Posts,

Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules,

2020 [referred to as GDS Rules], as revised from time to

time and not framed under the Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. They are holders of Civil Posts

outside the civil services of State. They are required to

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

3/27

serve, mostly, in rural areas to render the services of the

Department. As per Rule 3A of the said GDS Rules, they

are required to work for minimum for a period of four

hours and maximum for five hours a day and then cannot

be retained as Sevak beyond 65 years of age. A sevak

should have other source of income besides the

allowances to be paid by the Government for adequate

means of livelihood for himself and his family. The

candidates selected as BPMs are required to arrange

accommodation for running the post office (called as

Branch Post Office) at their own cost. The candidates are

advised to carefully go through the said GDS Rules,

which are available on the official website of the

Department.

Clause 5.2. QUALIFICATION AS ON THE DATE OF

NOTIFICATION

1(a). Educational qualification for engagement of GDS is

Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th

standard with passing marks in Mathematics and English

conducted by any recognized Board of School Education

by the Government of India/State Governments/Union

Territories in India.

(b). The applicant should have studied the local language

at least up to 10

th

Standard from a recognized Board. The

detail of post-wise local language prescribed by the

Department is given in the Annexure-III.

Clause 8: SELECTION CRITERIA

(i). The applicants will be shortlisted for engagement on

the basis of a system generated merit list.

(ii). The merit list will be prepared on the basis of marks

obtained/conversion of Grades/Points to marks (as

explained in sub paras - iii to xiii below) in Secondary

School Examination of 10th standard of recognised

Boards aggregated to percentage to the accuracy of 4

decimals.

(iii). For applicants where Secondary School

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

4/27

Examination of 10th standard mark sheet contains the

marks as mentioned in each subject or marks and

Grade/Points both, their total marks will be worked out

by taking into account the 'marks obtained’. In case any

applicant applies with grades/points instead of marks,

his/her application will be liable for cancellation.

However, if for any particular subject (s) only grades are

mentioned in the mark sheet then for that subject (3)

grades can be mentioned and the same need not to be

converted to the marks by the candidates.

(iv). For applicants having only grades subject-wise

marks will be arrived for each subject, by applying the

multiplying factor of 9.5 in the following manner:

Grade Grade Point Multiplication factor

A1 10 9.5

A2 9 9.5

B1 8 9.5

B2 7 9.5

C1 6 9.5

C2 5 9.5

D 4 9.5

(v). In case of the marks lists contain the Grades/ Points,

marks will be reckoned by taking conversion of Grades

and points with the multiplication factor (9.5) against the

maximum points or grade as 100.

(vi). Where Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) is

also provided, the marks will be arrived at by multiplying

the CGPA by 9.5. Where individual grades in each subject

as well as CGPA is given, the higher of the two marks will

be taken. It is to clarify that the candidates are not

required to convert their points/grades into marks and

are required to mention the grades/points only (wherever

applicable), while filling up the online application. The

conversion of grades/points to the marks would be

carried out by the system before declaration of result for

the purpose of arriving at the merit.

(x). Applications submitted without complete data will be

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

5/27

rejected. In case an applicant uploads wrong

documents/information and unnecessary documents

his/her candidature will be rejected.

(xi). Shortlisted applicants will have to submit an

undertaking in the format annexed as Annexure-IX,

regarding liability in case of furnishing fake/incorrect

information/details in the form.”

3.It is the case of the sole respondent that pursuant to the

said advertisement / notification dated 12.7.2024, she had

applied for appointment as GDS by submitting online

application on 28.7.2024, leading to her name being shortlisted

as a successful candidate, as is apparent from the merit list dated

19.10.2024. After publication of the merit list, an email dated

20.10.2024 was sent to the shortlisted candidates including the

respondent for document verification and the shortlisted

candidates were called for document verification on or before

4.11.2024. Thereafter, the respondent had submitted her

documents for verification, which were verified and were

accepted by the petitioners, whereupon a communication dated

25.10.2024 was sent to the respondent, stating therein that her

candidature has been accepted. The Superintendent of Post

Office, Begusarai Division, Begusarai i.e. the petitioner No. 5

herein sent a letter dated 20.11.2024 to the Respondent, stating

therein that as per para 5.2(1)(b) of the advertisement dated

12.7.2024, for appointment as GDS, the candidate should at

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

6/27

least have passed 10

th

class with subject of the regional language

from a recognized Board and as per Annexure-III of the said

notification dated 12.7.2024, the regional language for the Bihar

circle is Hindi, however it has transpired from the documents,

submitted by the respondent that the respondent has passed the

10

th

class examination from CBSE, Delhi but the subject Hindi

does not find place in the mark sheet submitted by her, thus it is

not clear as to whether she has read Hindi language or not. In

such view of the matter, the respondent was asked that in case

she has studied Hindi prior to Class 10

th

or after Class 10

th

then

certificate to the said effect from a recognized school / high

school be submitted in the office of the petitioner No. 5. In

compliance of the said letter dated 20.11.2024, the respondent

submitted her 12

th

standard and B. Com (Hons.) mark sheet,

which shows that the respondent had ‘Rashtra Bhasha Hindi’ as

one of the subjects in Class 12

th

and further had Hindi as

subsidiary paper in B. Com (Hons).

4.In the meantime, the respondent was sent for basic

training for three days and on successful completion of the basic

training on 4.12.2024, a letter dated 4.12.2024 was given to her

by the Inspector of Post, communicating to the Superintendent

of Post Offices that she has successfully completed three days

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

7/27

training. Thereafter, the provisional engagement letter was

issued in the name of the respondent on 9.12.2024, whereafter

she had submitted her joining at Bikrampur Branch on

17.12.2024. It is the case of the respondent that all of a sudden,

a letter was sent to her on 6.2.2025, whereby and whereunder

the services of the respondent has been terminated without

either assigning any reason or giving any notice to her.

5.The petitioners had filed written statement before the Ld.

CAT, inter alia stating therein that vide notification dated

12.7.2024, applications were invited from eligible candidates to

fill up various posts of GDS. It has been stated that while

submitting online application forms, the candidate had to,

besides other declaration, also declare that the details furnished

therein i.e. age/address/educational qualifications/ computer

knowledge/ EWS/ PWD/Caste etc., on the basis of which

application was being filed, is true to the best of the knowledge

and belief of such candidate. The candidate had to further

furnish undertaking that in case any detail submitted by the

candidate is found to be false at any stage of engagement

process/ during engagement, candidature of such candidate shall

be liable to be rejected against all the vacancies, applied for or

after engagement of such candidate and the candidate would be

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

8/27

liable to be terminated under GDS (Conduct and Engagement)

Rules. In fact, a candidate had also to furnish declaration to the

effect that such candidate has studied notification document

thoroughly and found herself / himself eligible for the post of

GDS/ABPM/Dak Sevak. It has been pointed out that in

paragraph no. 8 (x) of the said notification dated 12.7.2024, it

has been clearly mentioned that application submitted without

complete data will be rejected and in case an applicant uploads

wrong documents/information and unnecessary documents, his/

her candidature will be rejected. Moreover, shortlisted

applicants were required to submit an undertaking in the format,

annexed as Annexure-IX of the said notification dt. 12.7.2024,

regarding liability in case of furnishing fake/incorrect

information/ details in the form.

6.As regards the Respondent, it has been stated in the

written statement that she had applied for GDS engagement in

Bihar circle and on the basis of a system generated merit list,

she was shortlisted. The work of verification of documents was

delegated to one Sri Rajiv Kumar, Inspector of Post (Public

Grievance), Office of the SPOs, Begusarai Division, Begusarai,

vide letter dated 21.10.2024. The respondent had turned up for

document verification-1 on 25.10.2024 and the said Sri Rajiv

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

9/27

Kumar had cross checked data of original documents with the

data of online application downloaded from the portal,

pertaining to the respondent. The Respondent had entered

Hindi-A/Hindi-B in the uploaded application form while

Sanskrit was depicted in the original mark sheet submitted by

her during the document verification held on 25.10.2024, thus

the respondent had / has violated the requirement of Rule 8(x)

of the Selection Criteria mentioned in the notification dated

12.7.2024. It has been further stated in the written statement that

the verifying authority has to check the local language of the

concerned State mentioned in the original certificate submitted

by the candidate by comparing it with the application uploaded

on the portal in accordance with the provisions contained in

paragraph no. 2.3(v) of the SOP, related to GDS online

engagement process schedule, July-2024 and if any difference is

found in the local language, the same is definitely violation of

the provision, contained in Clause 5.2 (1) (b) and Annexure-III

of the descriptive notification and engagement schedule,

contained in notification dated 12.7.2024.

7.It has been next stated in the written statement filed by

the petitioners before the Ld. CAT that as per the prescribed

guidelines of the Department, document verification-2 was held

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

10/27

on 4.11.2024, wherein the candidature of the respondent was

rejected and marked as not tallied by one Sri Manikant, OA,

Establishment Branch, who had been instructed by the then

Superintendent of Post Offices, Begusarai Division, Begusarai

but subsequently, the said Superintendent of Post Offices,

Begusarai had sent an email to the Department under collusion

that the candidature of the respondent has been rejected

inadvertently on 4.11.2024 and uploaded on GDS online

engagement site, although the fact is that she has been selected

for the post of BPM, Bikrampur Branch Office under the

Begusarai Division, hence he had requested to reinstate the

candidature of the respondent, leading to reinstatement of the

candidature of the respondent in the online system, whereafter

she was provisionally engaged as GDS BPM, Bikrampur

Branch Office, however with a condition that her engagement

on the post shall be in the nature of a contract liable to be

terminated by her or by the authorities by notifying the order in

writing. In fact, departmental proceeding has already been

initiated against the then Superintendent of Post Offices,

Begusarai Division, Begusarai. It is stated that an enquiry was

carried out by the designated officer of the Department and it

has been found that the engagement process of the respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

11/27

on the post of BPM, Bikrampur Branch Office is not correct,

inasmuch as there is mismatch of subject as per the application

filed by the candidate online vis-à-vis the physical certificate

submitted by her apart from the fact that she has not studied the

local language of Bihar i.e. Hindi in Class 10

th

, hence the

engagement of the respondent was terminated as per Rule 8 (1)

of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules,

2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2020”). At this

juncture, it would be relevant to quote Rule 8(1) of the Rules,

2020 herein below:-

“8. Termination of Engagement:-

(1). The engagement of a Sevak who has not already

rendered more than three years' continuous engagement

from the date of his/her engagement shall be liable to be

terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either

by the Sevak to the Engaging Authority, or by the

Engaging Authority or any Authority to which the

Engaging Authority is subordinate or any other Authority

empowered in that behalf by the Government, by general

or special order, to the Sevak.”

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

one of the requisite educational qualification, as per Clause 5.2

(1) (b) of the notification dated 12.7.2024 is that the applicant

should have studied the local language at least up to 10

th

standard from a recognized Board, which in the case of Bihar is

Hindi, however a bare perusal of the online application,

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

12/27

submitted by the Respondent would show that under the

heading “marks/grades/points”, the year of passing 10

th

class

examination has been shown to be 2015 from CBSE and the

subjects / grades have been mentioned as follows:-

Subjects Marks / Grades/Points

Mathematics A1

Hindi-A/Hindi-B A1

English Communicative/

English language & Literature

A1

Science A1

Social Science A1

CGPA (As entered by the

candidate)

10

The learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted

that a bare perusal of the online application of the Respondent

shows that she was having Hindi-A/Hindi-B as one of the

subject in 10

th

Class and had got Grade-A1, however a bare

perusal of the 10

th

Class mark sheet, issued by the CBSE, Delhi,

annexed at page no. 108 of the paper book would show that the

same does not contain any Hindi subject, nonetheless the same

instead shows that she had studied Sanskrit subject. It is thus

submitted that the respondent had furnished false / incorrect

information in her online application form, thus in terms of

Clause 8(xi) of the notification dated 12.7.2024, coupled with

the undertaking furnished in the form contained in Annexure-

IX, which postulates that in case any details, submitted by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

13/27

candidate is found to be false / incorrect at any stage of

engagement process/ during engagement, the candidature shall

be liable to be rejected and such candidate shall be terminated,

the respondent has rightly been terminated under Clause 8(i) of

the Rules, 2020, since she had submitted false/incorrect

information in her online application form.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioners has further

submitted that the initial verifying officer, Shri Rajiv Kumar,

IP(PG), correctly marked the application "Rejected" after

tallying the data with the original documents, however due to

collusion between the applicant and the then SPO, Begusarai,

this rejection was overridden in contravention of the Standard

Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 16.08.2024. Subsequent DV-2

verification done on 04.11.2024 again confirmed the mismatch,

leading to rejection in the system. Yet within days, the SPO

sought reinstatement of the candidature of the respondent

without assigning any valid reason, in complete disregard of

departmental guidelines. This manipulation of procedure has

directly violated Clause 5.2 (1) (b) and Annexure-III of the

Notification dated 12.07.2024 and has undermined the

mandatory requirement of local language proficiency.

10.The learned Counsel for the petitioners has next

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

14/27

submitted that the departmental inquiry has established that the

respondent's engagement was irregular, based on false data entry

and ineligibility and was the result of a conspiracy to secure

appointment. Accordingly, under Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2020,

which permits termination within three years of engagement

without assigning reason, the respondent's services have been

terminated, vide memo dated 06.02.2025. The plea of violation

of principles of natural justice is misconceived in the present

case as the said action is a termination simpliciter under Rule

8(1) of the Rules, 2020 and not a punitive dismissal, requiring a

full-fledged inquiry under the disciplinary rules.

11.The learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted

that the respondent had supplied false / incorrect information in

her online application form, leading to her being selected and

having been issued with the provisional engagement letter dated

9.12.2024, nonetheless upon detailed enquiry, the same was

uncovered and it was found that though the respondent was

having Sanskrit as a subject in her 10

th

CBSE examination,

however she had falsely filled in her online application form

regarding she having Hindi-A/Hindi-B as a subject in her 10

th

examination instead of Sanskrit, which definitely amounts to

suppressio veri and suggestio falsi on the part of the respondent,

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

15/27

leading to the authorities being misled in taking a decision to

appoint respondent as GDS, however upon discovery of the

misrepresentation, the engagement of the respondent has been

terminated by the impugned order dated 6.2.2025, in terms of

Clause 8 (xi) read with Annexure-IX of the notification dated

12.7.2024 and Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2020, hence there is no

illegality in the impugned order dated 6.2.2025, as contained in

the covering letter dated 7.2.2025. Thus, the impugned

judgment rendered by the Ld. CAT dated 19.8.2025 is perverse

and fit to be set aside. In this connection, reliance has been

placed on a judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Central Airman Selection Board & Anr. vs.

Surender Kumar Das, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 152, paragraph

no. 7 whereof is reproduced herein below:-

“7. The question, therefore, is whether in case of this

nature the principle of promissory estoppel should be

invoked. It is well known that the principle of promissory

estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who

has himself misled the authority by making a fake

statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his

misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a

decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is

sought to be cancelled. The High Court has proceeded on

the basis that the petitioner had not made any

misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he

had passed the intermediate examination. As we have

found above, this finding of the High Court is erroneous,

contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. In his

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

16/27

application, the respondent had claimed that he had

passed the secondary examination as well as the higher

secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his

candidature was considered on the basis that he had

passed the higher secondary +2 examination, as in that

case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of

age. However, the marksheet annexed to the application

disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject

Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that

he had passed the higher secondary +2 examination, was

factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these

circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could

not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory

estoppel, and the High Court has clearly erred in law in

invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The

judgment and order of the High Court therefore cannot

be sustained.”

12.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on a

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

A.P. Service Commission vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu & Others,

reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177, paragraph no. 7 whereof is

reproduced herein below:-

“7. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned

counsel for the first respondent. As to the purpose for

which the information is called for, the employer is the

ultimate judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in

judgment about the relevance of the information called

for and decide to supply it or not. There is no doubt that

the application called for full employment particulars

vide column 11. Similarly, Annexure III contained an

express declaration of not working in any public or

private employment. We are also unable to accept the

contention that it was inadvertence which led the first

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

17/27

respondent to leave the particulars in column 11 blank

and make the declaration of non-employment in Annexure

III to the application. The application was filled on 24-7-

1999, the examination was held on 24-10-1999, and the

interview call was given on 31-1-2000. At no point of

time did the first respondent inform the appellant

Commission that there was a bona fide mistake by him in

filling up the application form, or that there was

inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the

appellant Commission discovered by itself that there was

suppressio veri and suggestio falsi on the part of the first

respondent in the application that the respondent came

forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence.

That there has been suppressio veri and suggestio falsi is

incontrovertible. The explanation that it was irrelevant or

emanated from inadvertence, is unacceptable. In our

view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the ratio

of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan [(2003) 3 SCC 437]

and contending that a person who indulges in such

suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and obtains

employment by false pretence does not deserve any public

employment. We completely endorse this view.”

13.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Begusarai

Division, Begusarai had sent a letter dated 25.10.2024 to the

Assistant Director (Recruitment), Bihar Circle, Patna regarding

clarification about the candidature of the respondent seeking

guidelines as to whether her candidature should be accepted or

not, inasmuch as though she has passed her 10

th

examination

with Sanskrit subject, however while filing the online

application form, she has mentioned one subject out of five

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

18/27

subjects as Hindi-A/Hindi-B and during the course of first

document verification, she has asserted that since there was no

option for selecting Sanskrit subject in the online application

form, she had chosen Hindi-A/ Hindi-B, to which the Assistant

Director (Recruitment), Bihar Circle, Patna had replied, vide

email dated 1.11.2024 to proceed as per the SOP dt. 16.8.2024.

The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to scenario

B mentioned in the Standard Operating Procedure to submit that

in case the entries fed in the portal are found mismatch with that

mentioned in the original documents, effecting the merit, the

dialogue box would show- “not tallied”, however the same did

not happen in the case of the respondent.

14.It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondent that the educational qualification prescribed in the

notification dated 12.7.2024 is that the applicant should have

studied the local language at least up to 10

th

standard from a

recognized Board, which impliedly means that candidates who

have studied the local language from a recognized Board in

higher classes then 10

th

are also eligible. It is next submitted that

the alleged wrong entry, as aforesaid, was not intentional and

the respondent was genuinely confused by the online application

portal not accepting any other subject other than Hindi-A/Hindi-

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

19/27

B as such she thought that the marks of the Sanskrit had to be

filled in that column as there was no option granted by the

online application system and it was a minor system failure. At

this juncture itself, it has been stated that as per the provision,

contained in scenario-B of SOP, it has been mentioned that in

case where the candidate reports with some of the documents or

with no documents or the documents are not in prescribed

format or there is mismatch in the entries filled in online

applications and original documents, not effecting merit, the

candidature may be accepted on the basis of an undertaking as

annexed at Annexure-IV from the candidate and uploaded on the

portal. Reference has also been made to Clause 8(ii) of the

notification dated 12.7.2024 to submit that the merit list has to

be prepared on the basis of marks obtained / conversion of

grades/ points to marks in Secondary School Examination of

10

th

Standard of recognized Boards aggregated to percentage to

the accuracy of 4 decimals. Lastly, reference has been made by

the Ld. counsel for the Respondent to an order dated 26.4.2023,

passed by the Ld. CAT in O.A. No. 050/00282/2021 (Vidushi

Tripathi vs. The Union of India & Others) to submit that in

somewhat similar type of case, the Ld. CAT has held that words

'at least up to 10th standard', if is interpreted liberally and

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

20/27

constructively, vis a vis, the intent to be achieved- "Compulsory

knowledge of Local Language'; it can be said that its import is

study of Local Language up to standard not below 10

th

standard.

In the present case, the respondent has studied Hindi up to 8th

class, has studied Sanskrit in 9

th

& 10

th

class and then studied

Hindi in 12

th

class, hence she cannot be said to be not having the

knowledge of Hindi and as per existing Rule also she cannot be

debarred by treating her ineligible on this count.

15.It is submitted that the aforesaid order dated 26.4.2023,

passed by the Ld. CAT has been upheld by a Division Bench of

this Court in CWJC No. 9192 of 2024 (The Union of India &

Others vs. Vidushi Tripathi) by a judgment dated 12.2.2025,

wherein it has been held that if a job posting requires local

language in the matriculation and a candidate has an

intermediate qualification with local language, the higher

intermediate qualification would be considered acceptable as it

compasses the required matriculation level of local language.

Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent

that on the same analogy as has been decided by the Ld. CAT

and the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Vidushi

Tripathi (supra), the present case is fit to be allowed, since the

respondent has studied Hindi subject both at the level of

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

21/27

intermediate as also while pursuing her B.Com (Hons.).

16.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the materials on record. The facts lie in a narrow

compass, inasmuch as the petitioners had issued an

advertisement / notification dt. 12.7.2024, inviting application to

fill the vacant post of Gramin Dak Sevak, wherein detailed

terms and conditions have been stipulated and in pursuance

thereof, the respondent had filed online application form,

wherein in the column meant for depicting the 10

th

class marks /

grades/ points, the Respondent had incorrectly filled one of the

subjects as Hindi-A/Hindi-B although the same was not her

subject in 10

th

class and actually her subject was Sanskrit. This

led to the name of the respondent being depicted in the merit

list, whereby eligible candidates had been shortlisted for

document verification and then, it appears that she had managed

to secure appointment, leading to issuance of provisional

engagement letter dated 09.12.2024, whereafter she had

submitted her joining on 17.12.2024. The crux of the matter is

as to whether furnishing of false information in the online

application form by the respondent can be categorized as an

error, having no bearing on the merit list to be generated by the

system, leading to acceptance of the candidature of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

22/27

applicant. In this connection, we may refer to Clause 5.2 (1) (b)

of the advertisement / notification dated 12.7.2024, which

postulates that the applicant should have studied local language

up to 10

th

standard from a recognized Board and in pursuance

thereof, the respondent had filed online application form,

mentioning therein regarding one of the subject in her 10

th

examination being Hindi-A/Hindi-B although she had instead

studied Sanskrit and in the mark sheet of the 10

th

examination,

issued by the CBSE, Delhi also there is no mention of Hindi-

A/Hindi-B but the same only mentions Sanskrit as one of the

subject. The reason offered by the respondent for furnishing

such false information is that since there was no option for

selecting Sanskrit subject in the online application form, she

chose Hindi-A/Hindi-B instead of Sanskrit while filling the

online application form and that too on account of confusion

created by the online application software of the petitioners.

Thus admittedly, we find that false / incorrect information

furnished by the respondent in the online application form

definitely has a bearing on the merit list generated by the

system, inasmuch as in case the respondent would not have

filled wrong subject as Hindi-A/Hindi-B and instead would have

tried to choose the subject Sanskrit, her form would not have

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

23/27

been accepted, hence as per Clause 8(xi) read with the

undertaking under Annexure-IX, the candidature of the

respondent is definitely liable to be rejected and her engagement

is liable to be terminated under the Rules, 2020 on account of

false and incorrect details having been submitted by her in the

online application form.

17.At this juncture, we may gainfully refer to the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Koneti

Venkateswarulu & Others (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that a person, who indulges in suppressio veri

and suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence

does not deserve any public employment. We may also refer to

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Surender Kumar Das (supra) to the effect that a person, who

has himself misled the authority by making a false/ fake

statement and in the process has misled the authority into taking

a decision, which on discovery of the misrepresentation is

sought to be cancelled, the authorities are bound to correct the

mistake and recall the order of selection especially, in cases

where a candidate not eligible for appointment is selected by

mistake contrary to the terms of the advertisement and the

Rules. As far as the judgment rendered by the learned CAT and

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

24/27

a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vidushi Tripathi

(supra) is concerned, we find that the said case is

distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, inasmuch as there was no false / incorrect supply of

information in the online application form, since the online

application of the original applicant of the said case was not

accepted by the system as the column for Hindi in matriculation

could not be filled up as per the option given in the system

because she had studied Sanskrit in 9

th

and 10

th

class, whereafter

the original application was filed before the Ld. CAT,

contending therein that as per the existing Rule, she cannot be

debarred from participating in the examination, however on the

contrary in the present case the respondent has furnished false

and incorrect information while submitting her online

application form.

18.We find from the impugned order dated 19.8.2025, passed

by the Ld. CAT in the present case that the sole ground on

which the original application, filed by the respondent has been

allowed is that her case is covered by the judgment rendered by

the Ld. CAT in the case of Vidushi Tripathi (supra), as upheld

by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and a candidate well-versed in

Sanskrit can efficiently read and write Hindi, as such this

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

25/27

qualification, on the ground of not having Hindi in matriculation

examination is unjustified when Hindi is present at higher levels

or proficiency can otherwise be established. We find from the

aforesaid discussion that the Ld. CAT has absolutely misdirected

itself in not appreciating the main issue involved in the present

case, i.e. as to whether the false / incorrect information

furnished by the respondent in her online application form has

any bearing on the merit list generated by the system, as to

whether misrepresentation by the candidate has misled the

authority into taking a decision to select such a candidate who is

not eligible for appointment and when such mistake is detected,

are the authorities not bound to correct the mistake and recall

the order of selection and as to whether a person who indulges

in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and obtains employment

by false pretence, deserves any public employment. The answer

is very simple, inasmuch as the respondent has definitely

engaged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, leading to the

authorities being misled in issuing provisional engagement letter

dated 9.12.2024 to the respondent herein. Thus, the issue which

arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether in

terms of Clause 8(xi) read with Annexure-IX of the notification

dated 12.7.2024, the engagement of the respondent is required

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

26/27

to be terminated since she has submitted false /incorrect

information, as aforesaid. We further find from Clause 3 of the

notification dated 12.7.2024 that the Gramin Dak Sevaks are not

regular employees of the Department and their service

conditions are governed by the Rules, 2020, which have not

been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India,

hence considering Rule 8(i) of the Rules, 2020, which provides

for termination of engagement of Gramin Dak Sevak, who has

not already rendered more than three years continued

engagement from the date of his / her engagement, at any time

by a notice in writing to such Gramin Dak Sevak, the petitioners

have rightly terminated the engagement of the respondent, vide

order dated 6.2.2025, thus no infirmity can be found with such

action of the petitioners.

19.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and for the foregoing reasons, we find that the Ld. CAT has

erred in passing the impugned judgment dated 19.8.2025 by

misconstruing the basic issue involved in the present case, as

has been discussed at length in the preceding paragraphs, hence

we are of the view that the impugned judgment dated 19.8.2025

requires interference, thus the same is set aside and the order

dated 6.2.2025, passed by the Petitioner No. 5, as contained in

Patna High Court CWJC No.18157 of 2025 dt.03-04-2026

27/27

covering letter dated 7.2.2025 is restored.

20.The writ petition stands allowed.

Ajay/-

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 06.01.2026

Uploading Date 03.04.2026

Transmission Date NA