Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ujwala Uday Pimple, was appointed as an employee of the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited (MFDC) on 22/2/2010 pursuant to an advertisement dated 29/9/2009. The advertisement prescribed a maximum age limit of 33 years. The petitioner had already crossed that age at the time of appointment. Consequently, the respondents terminated her service under the MFDC Service Regulations by offering one month's pay in lieu of notice. The petitioner challenged the termination by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The main grounds of challenge were that there were no rules prescribing the maximum age limit for appointment, and that the termination was contrary to principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued. The court rejected the first argument, holding that an employer is entitled to impose an age limit in the advertisement even if not prescribed in the regulations, and the petitioner, having acted on the advertisement without questioning it, cannot later challenge it. Regarding the second argument, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, which held that where the employee knows the disqualification (here, age limit), no show cause notice is necessary. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Service - Age Limit - Employer's Right to Impose Age Limit in Advertisement - Even if no age limit is prescribed in the Service Regulations, an employer is entitled to impose an age limit in the advertisement for recruitment. The petitioner, having acted upon the advertisement without challenging it, cannot later question the age limit. (Paras 2-3)
B) Service Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - Termination for Misrepresentation or Suppression of Facts - Where the termination is based on the fact that the employee did not possess the requisite qualification (age limit) at the time of appointment, no show cause notice is required as the employee is aware of the disqualification. The principle of natural justice is not violated. (Para 4, citing Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's service on the ground of crossing the age limit prescribed in the advertisement is valid, and whether the termination is bad for violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Termination of service
- age limit in advertisement
- principles of natural justice
- show cause notice
- employer's discretion
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 162
Writ Petition No.4814/2010
S.A. Bobde, Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar
Shri S.S. Godbole for petitioner, Shri P.C. Madkholkar for respondents
The Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging termination of service
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of termination order and reinstatement
Filing Reason
Petitioner's service was terminated on the ground that she had crossed the age limit of 33 years prescribed in the advertisement
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner's service on the ground of crossing the age limit prescribed in the advertisement is valid when no age limit is prescribed in the Service Regulations?
Whether the termination is bad for violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there are no rules prescribing maximum age limit and the age limit in advertisement was arbitrarily imposed; termination without show cause notice violates natural justice.
Respondent relied on Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan to argue that no show cause notice is required when the employee knows the disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi
An employer is entitled to impose an age limit in the advertisement for recruitment even if no age limit is prescribed in the Service Regulations. Where the termination is based on the employee's lack of requisite qualification (age limit) known to the employee, no show cause notice is required, and principles of natural justice are not violated.
Judgment Excerpts
The only ground for termination of services of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 22/2/2010 in pursuance of an advertisement dated 29/9/2009 and that she had already crossed the age of 33 years which was the age limit imposed in the advertisement.
There is no merit in this argument because it is open to an employee to impose an age limit in the advertisement even if there is no age limit prescribed in the Regulations.
Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for respondents, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University and others V/s. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 529 where the Supreme Court has made the following observations - '21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India there can be certain situations in which an order...'
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 22/2/2010. Her service was terminated shortly thereafter. She filed Writ Petition No.4814/2010 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the termination. The petition was heard and dismissed on 19/10/2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation (MFDC) Service Regulations:
