New Delhi, June 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday held that an individual working in a registered society, even if it qualifies as a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be treated as a government servant.

The observation came while dismissing a plea challenging an order of the Tripura High Court that had upheld the petitioner’s termination from government service for misrepresenting his employment status.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing the case of a petitioner who was dismissed from the post of junior weaver at the Weaver’s Service Centre, Agartala, a unit under the Ministry of Textiles, government of India.

The petitioner had earlier served as a crafts teacher at the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWREIS), an autonomous body supported by the state government.

The petitioner had claimed eligibility for the post of junior weaver on the ground that he was a government servant due to his employment with TTWREIS.

However, after an inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Textiles and further verification by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), it was confirmed that TTWREIS was not a government department but a registered society.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Bhuyan remarked, “A society being amenable to Article 12 does not make a person working there a government servant.”

The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the Tripura High Court’s single and division benches.

It emphasised that under Rule 2(h) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a "government servant" must be someone who holds a civil post under the Union or state government.

Since TTWREIS is not a government department, the post of craft teacher therein does not constitute a civil post, the court held.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s arguments based on estoppel and waiver, stating that the appointment was explicitly conditional upon proof of government service.

As the petitioner had misrepresented material facts to gain appointment, the Court held that such an appointment is voidable at the discretion of the employer.

“It is a settled proposition that appointments secured through misrepresentation or concealment of material facts are voidable,” the Court noted.

“The mere passage of time or continued service does not create any equitable right in favor of the petitioner, nor can it operate as estoppel against the government.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the Tripura High Court's decision and dismissed the special leave petition.

UNI SNG PRS