Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1969 (RAJ)

Balram S/o Deendayal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-09

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The petitioner, Balram S/o Deendayal, is alleged to have been appointed vide appointment order dated 07.07.2004 (Annex.1) as Book-Lifter by the respondent No.3, Government College Development Committee, Suratgarh, under the S.F.S. Scheme for the Session 2004-05 on a fixed honorarium of Rs.50/- per day, maximum Rs.1500/- per month. The photocopy of the purported appointment order has been produced by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner came to this Court aggrieved by Annex.2 Advertisement issued by the respondents inviting applications for such Book Lifters for the Session 2008-09 on temporary/ad hoc basis for the said session. 3. The petitioner has also filed a representation (Annex.3) dated NIL to the Principal of the said College that since he was already working as temporary Book Lifter in the said College, he deserves to be regularized and there was no justification for issuing the Advertisement (Annex.2). 4. A bare perusal of the Annex.1 order of appointment dated 07.07.2004, the original has not been produced before this court for the reasons best known to the petitioner, shows that there is some interpolation and manipulation made. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, produced another photocopy of the same order dated 07.07.2004, in which words " iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ :i ls j[kk tkrk gSA " are written whereas in the photocopy of the order produced by the petitioner along with the present writ petition (Page 11 of the paper book) the words appearing are " iw.kZr;k LFkkbZ :i ls j[kk tkrk gSA ". The word " ls " prima facie, appears to written by obliterating the word " v " from " vLFkkbZ " and word " ls " appears to have been inserted. This makes day and night difference between the meaning of the said appointment order and since the petitioner alone was to be benefited by such change of words, this Court has reason to believe that it is done by the petitioner with a view to mislead this Court though he was appointed n temporary basis as Book Lifter by the respondent No.3 College. The two scanned copies of both he orders produced by the petitioner and the respondent, respectively, are made part of this order as follows:- (1) - Scanned version of Annex.1 Order dated 07.07.2004 (Page 11 of the paper book produced by the petitioner: ? The two scanned copies of both he orders produced by the petitioner and the respondent, respectively, are made part of this order as follows:- (1) - Scanned version of Annex.1 Order dated 07.07.2004 (Page 11 of the paper book produced by the petitioner: ? 1509-220168 dk;kZy; izkpk;Z ,oa v/;{k jktdh; egkfo|ky; fodkl lfefr] lwjrx<+ ¼jkt-½ jftLVªs'ku Øekad 143@Jhxaxkuxj@2001-2002 Øekad SFS/2004-05/196 fnukad % 7-7-2004 Jh cyjke 'kekZ S/o Jh nhun;ky 'kekZ Hkxr flag pkSd okMZ ua-24 V.PO lwjrx<+ - 335804 fo"k; % SFS ;kstuk ds vUrxZr cqd-fyVj ds in ij j[kus ckcr~A egkfo|ky; lwjrx<+ esa lu~ 2004-05 gsrq SFS ;kstuk esa Jh cyjke 'kekZ S/o Jh nhun;ky lwjrx<+ dks egkfo|ky; iqLrdky; esa cqd fyVj ds dk;Z ds lkFk gh vU; lkSais x;s dk;Z djus gsrq bl l= ds fy;s ¼2004-05½ izfrfnu :- 50 dh nj] vf/kdre :- 1500/- ¼v[kjs :- iUnzg lkS½ ds ekuns; ij iw.kZr;k es LFkkbZ :i ls j[kk tkrk gSA mä dk;Z ds vfrfjä egkfo|ky; ds isM+ ikS/kksa dh ns[kHkky djrs jgsaxsA mä vkns'k fnukad 7-7-2004 ls izHkkoh gksaxsA lgh@& izkpk;Z ,oa v/;{k jkt- egk- fodkl lfefr lwjrx<+ (2) - Scanned version of Order dated 07.07.2004 produced by the learned counsel for the respondent: ? 1509-220168 dk;kZy; izkpk;Z ,oa v/;{k jktdh; egkfo|ky; fodkl lfefr] lwjrx<+ ¼jkt-½ jftLVªs'ku Øekad 143@Jhxaxkuxj@2001-2002 Øekad SFS/2004-05/196 fnukad % 7-7-2004 Jh cyjke 'kekZ S/o Jh nhun;ky 'kekZ Hkxr flag pkSd okMZ ua-24 V.PO lwjrx<+ - 335804 fo"k; % SFS ;kstuk ds vUrxZr cqd-fyVj ds in ij j[kus ckcr~A egkfo|ky; lwjrx<+ esa lu~ 2004-05 gsrq SFS ;kstuk esa Jh cyjke 'kekZ S/o Jh nhun;ky lwjrx<+ dks egkfo|ky; iqLrdky; esa cqd fyVj ds dk;Z ds lkFk gh vU; lkSais x;s dk;Z djus gsrq bl l= ds fy;s ¼2004-05½ izfrfnu :- 50 dh nj] vf/kdre :- 1500/- ¼v[kjs :- iUnzg lkS½ ds ekuns; ij iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ :i ls j[kk tkrk gSA mä dk;Z ds vfrfjä egkfo|ky; ds isM+ ikS/kksa dh ns[kHkky djrs jgsaxsA mä vkns'k fnukad 7-7-2004 ls izHkkoh gksaxsA ¼vfrUe js[kkafdr ykbZu vly vkns'k esa e; gLrk{kj dkVh gqbZ fn[kk;h x;h gSA½ lgh@& izkpk;Z ,oa v/;{k jkt- egk- fodkl lfefr lwjrx<+ 5. Such mischievous persons and litigants who come to the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with unclean hands, are not entitled to any equitable relief in writ jurisdiction and for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India, the litigant could come only with clean hands and does not try to mislead the Court. 6. Therefore, the Court views this interpolation, forgery or insertion of words in the document seriously and is inclined to direct the prosecution of the petitioner for perjury. Since both the documents produced by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents are he photocopies, the same are taken note of an there are other difference also in the said order, as the last line in the order produced by the respondent's counsel, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, is cut out, whereas the same appears in the Annex.1, produced by the petitioner, therefore, it is matter of investigation and trial by the competent Court. 7. Therefore, while dismissing the present writ petition, this court directs the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to file appropriate complaint in the competent court against the petitioner for trail in the matter. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.