Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 131 (MP)

Narendra Kumar Sanadya v. State Of M. P.

2011-01-31

S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE case is called out but none responded on behalf of the petitioner though name of the learned counsel is shown in the cause list. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate is however present on behalf of the respondents. It appears from the order-sheets that earlier also on 26-11-2009 nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, I have perused the record. ( 2. ) IN the instant petition, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Seoni dated 6-10-1997 (Annexure A/12) and dated 25-7-1997 (Annexure A/13), whereby he has been informed that his selection made by the previous Principal has been cancelled by the Collector and his name has not been included in the approved select list for appointment to the post of Workshop Assistant, has come to this Court for the following reliefs : "1. That this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction quashing the order contained in Annexure A/12 and A/13 dated 6-10-1997 and 25-10-1997 cancelling the applicant appointment on the post of Workshop Assistant. 2. That the respondent be ordered to issue fresh appointment order for the post of Workshop Assistant. Any other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3. ) COST of these proceedings may also be granted in favour of the applicant. "3. The petitioner has claimed in the writ petition that he has passed Higher Secondary School Examination from Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education in the year 1990 and thereafter successfully completed his training of Electrician from Madhya Pradesh State Vocational Training Council, Jabalpur in the year 1993. He also claims that he has completed apprenticeship from Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. It has further been averred in the writ petition that considering his qualification and eligibility for the post of Electrician and Workshop Assistant, the Superintendent, Industrial Training Institute, Seoni, respondent No. 4 sent him a call letter dated 8th August, 1986 to appear for interview on 16th August, 1986. The petitioner claims that he answered all the questions correctly. It has further been averred in the writ petition that considering his qualification and eligibility for the post of Electrician and Workshop Assistant, the Superintendent, Industrial Training Institute, Seoni, respondent No. 4 sent him a call letter dated 8th August, 1986 to appear for interview on 16th August, 1986. The petitioner claims that he answered all the questions correctly. The respondent No. 3, the Principal of the Industrial Training Institute, Seoni, however, vide letter dated 9-9-1997 informed the petitioner about his selection for the post of Workshop Assistant and calling him to join at Mini Industrial Training Institute, Kurai/Ghansaur, District Seoni by 19-9-1997. Since the aforesaid letter was dispatched from the office on 23-9-1997 which was delivered to the petitioner on 24-9-1997, he could not join within the stipulated time. The petitioner, therefore, filed representations before the Collector on 1-10- 1997, 3-10-1997 and 19-10-1997 contained in Annexures A/9, A/10 and A/11, respectively, for issuance of appointment letter and permitting him to join the post as per the letter of appointment dated 9-9-1997. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join and by the aforesaid impugned order he was informed that his appointment order dated 9-9-1997 issued by the former Principal has been cancelled as his name does not find place in the select list approved by the Collector. 4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed the return stating therein that the Department of Manpower and Planning, State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 23rd April, 1996 constituted a Committee of eight members under the Chairmanship of the Collector to establish Mini ITI and to appoint the required staff to run the institute. Two Mini ITI one at Khurai and one at Ghansaur were proposed in the District Seoni. For the selection of staff, names were called for from Employment Office, District Seoni. Out of two posts of Workshop Assistant one was to be filled up from the general category candidate and the other one from amongst the Scheduled Caste category candidate. The Selection Committee called the candidates for interview on 16th August, 1996 and prepared the select list as per merit. However, it could not be finalized in the absence of sanction of the post. However, after receiving the sanction from the Directorate of Employment and Training, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur dated 2-10- 1997, further proceeding was started on the basis of the merit list. However, it could not be finalized in the absence of sanction of the post. However, after receiving the sanction from the Directorate of Employment and Training, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur dated 2-10- 1997, further proceeding was started on the basis of the merit list. As per Para 13 of the circular of the Planning Committee of the State Government dated 23-4- 1996, appointment letters were required to be issued after the selection is approved by the District Committee. However, in the instant case, the then Principal, Shri Suresh Kumar Sitare Hind, issued the appointment letter to the petitioner without getting approval from the District Committee which was in clear violation of the circular issued by the Committee. It has further been alleged in the return that though the petitioner has secured 56 marks only lower than one Vinod Kumar who secured 62 marks yet the Principal issued letter of appointment to the petitioner fraudulently and illegally in utter disregard of merit list. In support of the contention, the respondents have enclosed a copy of the tabulation sheet as Annexure R/3 to the return a perusal thereof confirm the fact that the petitioner has secured 56 marks only whereas Vinod Kumar has got 62 marks. It has also been disclosed in the return that the respondents have lodged an FIR which was registered as Case Crime No. 560/97 under sections 560, 161, Indian Penal Code, 7/13 D and 1/2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the then Principal and consequently he was arrested on 19-9-1997 and was also placed under suspension on 29-9-1997. It has also been stated in the return that the police has submitted charge-sheet in the Sessions Court, Jabalpur. It has also been stated that the appointment made by the then Principal Shri Suresh Kumar Sitare Hind being illegal and contrary to the merit list has been cancelled. ( 4. ) IN respect of the contention of the petitioner that he belongs to backward class, has also no merit because the Employment Exchange sent his name against the general category and there, being one post for general category candidate, the candidate securing highest marks could have only been appointed. The petitioner has not controverted the statement made in the return of the respondents by giving rejoinder. The petitioner has not controverted the statement made in the return of the respondents by giving rejoinder. It is evident from the averments made in the return that the petitioner's appointment was illegal and it was obtained by fraudulent means as the person securing higher marks is left out. The petitioner being lower in merits could not have been appointed. The alleged letter of appointment by the Principal being void has no sanction in the eyes of law and therefore even the principles of natural justice are not attracted and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has no right to the post. Appointment secured or made fraudulently is nullity and does not confer any right to such appointee and such appointment cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law. A person having secured appointment fraudulently does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court which is a Court of equity and it cannot take lenient view in favour of such person who has obtained the alleged letter of appointment fraudulently. It is well settled legal position that a person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Where a litigant comes to the Court with false claim cannot plead equity nor it would be justified to exercise equitable discretion of this Court in favour of such unscrupulous litigant. In Ram Saran vs. I.G. of Police, CRPF, 2006(2) SCC 541 , the Apex Court held that no leniency can be shown to a person who has obtained appointment on the basis of forged documents, otherwise it shall amount to giving premium to a person who committed forgery. In the case in hand, the petitioner having secured lesser marks could not have been given appointment but the then Principal against whom action has been initiated fraudulently issued the letter of appointment and the petitioner being beneficiary of it, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him and; therefore, if any leniency or mercy is shown, this would amount to give premium to such unscrupulous litigant who have secured appointments by fraudulent means. ( 5. ) IN view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered view that the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted and the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.