Jaipur, April 20: The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a sanitation worker by quashing his termination order. Specifically, the sanitation worker, Jitendra Meena, was appointed to the Municipal Corporation in 2018. At the time of his appointment, he was under 18 years of age.
After approximately four and a half years of service, the Corporation dismissed him on the grounds that he was under 18 years old at the time of his appointment a decision he subsequently challenged in the High Court.
HC cites natural justice violation, blames employer lapse
Quashing the termination order, the Court observed that the petitioner had not concealed any facts at the time of his appointment. Consequently, it was the employer’s responsibility to verify these facts. However, they failed to do so neither during the scrutiny of the application form, nor during the selection process, nor at the time of appointment.
Furthermore, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to be heard prior to the termination of his services, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Age: 17 Years and 4 Months at the Time of Appointment
Advocate C.P. Sharma informed the Court that the petitioner had applied for the sanitation worker recruitment drive held in 2018. The recruitment advertisement stipulated that, as of January 1, 2019, a candidate must be at least 18 years of age.
The petitioner was selected for the position. At the time of his selection, he did not conceal any information whatsoever.
He was issued an appointment order on September 7, 2018. At that time, he was 17 years and 4 months old. By January 1, 2019, his age stood at 17 years and 8 months. The Corporation referred his case to the Director of Local Bodies on April 23, 2019, and again on May 29, 2020.
The Director of Local Bodies took two years to respond to the matter. By that time, the petitioner had already crossed the minimum age threshold. Moreover, when he was finally dismissed on February 20, 2023, he was approximately 22 years old.
Appointment Resulted from a Clerical Error
On behalf of the Corporation, it was argued that the petitioner had failed to meet the minimum age limit of 18 years as of January 1, 2019, in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the recruitment advertisement. However, due to a clerical error, his appointment was effected.
In light of this, the petitioner holds no right whatsoever to continue in service. After hearing both parties, the Court set aside the dismissal order. Furthermore, it directed that the petitioner be reinstated to the post of cleaner, along with all attendant benefits.