Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2275 (ALL)

DURGESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-07-30

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. – The petitioner claims that he was selected as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary on 25.1.2005. There were certain allegations of malpractice in relation to the said selection and, therefore, an inquiry was conducted through a Committee constituted for the said purpose. During the said inquiry, verification was sought to be made with regard to the Caste Certificate, which was made the basis for claiming reservation for appointment by the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the said Caste Certificate was a fake document. 2. The petitioner submits that he belongs to the same caste and that it was not his responsibility to maintain the records, which should be done by the respondents in relation to the issuance of such Caste Certificate. In such a situation, even if, the records of the respondents do not indicate the issuance of the certificate in favour of the petitioner, the same cannot take away the petitioners right to claim reservation, inasmuch as, subsequently a certificate has been issued. In fact, it has been found that the petitioner belongs to the same caste under which he was claiming reservation. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that it is not the subsequent verification of the caste of the petitioner but the fact that the certificate was forged and it is that which impelled the authority to cancel the candidature of the petitioner and dismiss him from service. He has invited the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit to indicate that an inquiry was conducted and upon verification it was found that the Caste Certificate relied upon by the petitioner was not issued by the concerned Tehsildar. A Photostat copy of the register maintained for the said purpose has a1so been filed along with the counter-affidavit. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties it is evident that the petitioner succeeded in getting selected on the strength of a certificate which according to the petitioner had been validly issued. However, on inquiry, it has been found that no such Caste Certificate had been issued and the document appears to be forged. 5. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties it is evident that the petitioner succeeded in getting selected on the strength of a certificate which according to the petitioner had been validly issued. However, on inquiry, it has been found that no such Caste Certificate had been issued and the document appears to be forged. 5. In such a situation, even if, the petitioner belongs to the same caste as reflected in the certificate he cannot be extended the benefit of selection as he has taken the help of a fake document to gain public employment that too even in a disciplined force. In my opinion, the conclusion drawn by the authority in the impugned order on the said basis does not suffer from any infirmity much less a legal infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.