Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3392 (PNJ)

Gurdas Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-12-21

RANJIT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to seek writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to declare their ETT result for the Fourth Semester held in January, 2003 by the District Institution of Education and Training Ferozepur for the Session 1999-2001. Prayer further is to award the decree, which according to the petitioners was withheld due to misnomer and political vendetta. It is disclosed that the result of the persons similarly placed had been declared and they are presently serving as Teachers and are enjoying the benefit of the service. 2. From the facts pleaded, an obviously question would cross ones mind as to how the direction for declaring the result of the examination held in January, 2003 was being sought during fag end of the year 2010. A perusal of the petition also reveals that against the column of any other case contained in the title of the petition, reference is made to C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003, decided on 6.4.2004 and another writ petition No. 15133 of 2010. An attempt either is to hide the information or to remain evasive and it can be noticed from the note in this regard as made by the petitioner. This is as under :- "4. Any other case: CWP No. 16972 of 2003 decided on 06.04.2004. CWP No. 15133 of 2010 filed by the petitioners." 3. It can be noticed that the result of C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003 is not disclosed and that is also the state in respect of the second petition referred to in the title. In response to a query by the Court, counsel for the petitioners confirms that he had gone through the relief claimed in C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003. When asked to produce or show the order on the writ petition to ascertain the nature of the relief that was claimed in the said writ petition, counsel had prayed for time to do the needful. Finding this to be an action aimed at evading or hiding the information, directions were given to the Registry to place the record of these two writ petitions before this Court along with the present writ petition. The Registry has today placed the record of C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2004. The Registry has today placed the record of C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2004. Record of CWP No. 15133 of 2010 is not forthcoming as is not available. 4. It is rather disheartening to notice that the petitioners have chosen to file the present writ petition to pray for the same relief, which they had asked in 2003 through C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003 and which was not only declined, but was declined by imposing a costs of Rs. 5000/-. This writ petition was dismissed on April 6, 2004 by passing a detailed order after hearing the counsel, who had then appeared for the petitioners. 5. The prayer made in C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003 was noticed by the Division Bench in precise and distinct manner and reproduction in the order dismissing the writ petition. Identical prayer was made in the said writ petition as is made in the present writ petition. The submissions made in the said petition were as under :- "(1) They belong to Sikriband caste which has been declared as Scheduled Caste by the Government of India. (2) The caste certificates (Annexures P2 to P- 12) were issued by the competent authorities after due verification by Halqa Patwari, Kanungo, Tehsil Welfare Officer and Naib Tehsildar, Fazilka. (3) The report submitted by District Welfare Officer, Ferozepur (respondent No. 5) that the certificates possessed by them are not genuine is not correct. (4) Respondent No. 5 did not have the jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry regarding their social status and respondent No. 3 did not have the authority to issue show cause notices to them." 6. Having considered the above noted submissions in the light of the arguments raised by the counsel representing the petitioner and the State counsel, the Division Bench held that the Court was not inclined to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that they had obtained admission by producing bogus certificates. This case was not an isolated case where the right of the deserving candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes was found to have been frustrated by adopting dubious means by non- Scheduled Castes. It is noticed that a large number of such cases were coming before the Court where seats meant for reserved categories were usurped by those belonging to other castes. It is noticed that a large number of such cases were coming before the Court where seats meant for reserved categories were usurped by those belonging to other castes. The relief claimed by the petitioners, accordingly, was declined. 7. The whole case set up by the petitioners in the above noted writ petition was that they were Raisikh and were required to be treated as Scheduled Caste. After making detailed reference to the notification issued by the State Government regarding the Castes, the Court came to take up a view that the petitioners being Raisikh cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste. They were not entitled to seek admission against the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes. Having got their right adjudicated on merit, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court, the petitioners have chosen to file the present writ petition, that too after making another attempt through writ petition bearing No. 15133 of 2010. As per the counsel, this writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn to file the present writ petition. The record of the said writ petition could not be traced in the Registry as would be seen from the following report placed before this Court :- "In compliance with the orders dated 20.12.2010 passed by Honble Court, it is submitted that record of C.W.P. No. 16972 of 2003 is added herewith. Requisition for C.W.P. No. 15133of 2010 has been sent to RKJ. It is further submitted that record of C.W.P. No. 15133 of2010is not traceable. The inconvenience caused to Honble Court is highly regretted." 8. What has happened to the record of this case, would also need to be seen separately and the Registrar Judicial will look into this aspect. The issue in the present case, thus, would be to consider, if the petitioners could justifiably make the present approach in the background that same prayer was earlier declined by this Court through a well considered and reasoned judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court adjudicating the rights of the petitioners on the basis of the pleas that were raised. 9. The attitude of the counsel for the petitioners also appears to be unmindful about the consequences that are rather serious. 9. The attitude of the counsel for the petitioners also appears to be unmindful about the consequences that are rather serious. Without realising the implication, the counsel pleads that State had then mislead and had played a fraud with the Court in making the Court to pass the judgment on April 6,2004 and thus, the petitioners will have a right to seek adjudication of their rights on the basis of material now placed on record. This attitude is not worth appreciating and is highly undesirable. A counsel is an officer of the Court is meant to assist in the administration of justice. 10. The counsel was then apprised that even if his submissions are justified then filing of second writ petition that too after 7 years would not be justified. If otherwise possible, the petitioners were to seek review of the order. In that event, the petitioners could be expected to fairly disclose the earlier order in this writ petition and could have then prayed for review by laying open the ground of challenge. The counsel for the petitioners never chose to do so and apparently had no intention of doing so. They have rather chosen to file separate fresh petition being fully aware about the decision of the earlier writ petition. On the index page, the earlier writ petition is misleadingly mentioned as a similar case instead of disclosing that same relief was claimed in the earlier writ petition, which was declined. The submission that reference is made in para 3 of the petition that the said writ petition was for claiming such a similar relief against which the Special Leave Petition was filed, which was withdrawn appears to be another attempt to mislead rather than to disclose the fact in a correct and appropriate manner. This would rather further worsen the situation for the petitioners. The manner in which the petitioners have filed this writ petition to reagitate the issue, which has acquired finality even after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, is highly undesirable, unacceptable and impermissible mode. This is a clear attempt to pollute the justice. This cannot be permitted and is needed to be dealt with. When all this is projected to the counsel, he has the audacity to plead that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition to seek review of the earlier order. This is a clear attempt to pollute the justice. This cannot be permitted and is needed to be dealt with. When all this is projected to the counsel, he has the audacity to plead that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition to seek review of the earlier order. This is yet another attempt on his part to perpetuate this illegally in an inappropriate mode and is rejected. 11. I have considered the issues in entirety and I am of the view that the petitioners have made a clear attempt to mislead the Court. For this they need to be dealt with to set an example to avoid re-occurrence of such incident in future. The matter will also need to be brought to the notice of the Bar Council to see if the counsel has been fair in representing the facts in the present petition or has been a party to abuse of the process of Court. This Court would not like to say any thing more on this aspect as it ultimately reflects on the conduct of a counsel, who is officer of a Court. It is primarily for the Bar Council to see and remedy the situation. The Registry of this Court would send the copy of this order to the Chairman of the Bar Council of the State of Punjab & Haryana to look into the case and see if any action is called for against the counsel. So far as the conduct of the petitioners is concerned, it is surely found blame worthy and for that they cannot be allowed to escape from the rigors of law. The petition is dismissed with exemplary costs as the petitioners are found to have abused the process of the Court and are clearly seen to have filed the petition by giving misleading facts. Each petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- for approaching the Court in this manner. Costs be deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh. The writ petition is dismissed in the above terms. Registrar (Judicial) would report about the cause for which the record of C.W.P. No. 15133 of 2010 could not be traced.