Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 547 (PAT)

Bambam Paswan v. State of Bihar

2013-04-24

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2013
ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) Rule Nisi in the nature of certiorari calling upon respondent nos.1 to 3 as to why the proceeding or action by filing F.I.R. taking substance of which are contained in Annexures-1 and 2 be not quashed and on return of the said rule and after hearing the parties, if any, the said rule may be made absolute. (b) Rule Nisi in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents as to why they should not be directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner as recommended by the BPSC and on return of the Rule and after hearing the parties, the said rule may be made absolute. (c) Respondent no.4 may be directed to furnish the correct and relevant records, format etc. to respondent no.2 in respect of the petitioner within the time to be fixed by the Hon’ble Court. (d) Pass any other orders/directions as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) Cost incidental to the proceeding be awarded to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in response to advertisement no.17/98 for various posts of Group-C such as Gram Prasar Workers, Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks, etc. for the district of West Champaran published at the instance of Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’ for the sake of brevity), the petitioner filed his application for the said post enclosing necessary documents for his scheduled caste quota. Thereafter the petitioner was called for Preliminary Test in which he succeeded and he was called for main examination known as Pratham Kshetriya Kalyana Mukhya Pratiyogita Pariksha 1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received offer of appointment from the office of Collector, West Champaran and he reported for duty within the stipulated time, but the said letter of offer was taken back by the authority in the collectorate office and he was not allowed to join duty despite waiting for some days and he came home informing the authority concerned. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that he subsequently learnt that an F.I.R. bearing no.120 dated 05.04.2005 was registered at Bettiah Town Police Station for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of letter dated 04.04.2005 issued by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), West Champaran alleging that on verification of petitioner’s documents it was found that there were deference between photographs affixed on the original application of the petitioner and Identity Card issued by the B.D.O., Hasanpur (District-Samastipur) and his face differed and signature also differed from his photo and signature on the application form and hence it was claimed that the petitioner had made an attempt to get the government job on the basis of forged documents and identity. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that thereafter the records were shown to the petitioner at the collectorate and the petitioner learnt that although the preliminary test record was correct but the record of main examination was not correct. Furthermore, petitioner appeared at the preliminary test and his photograph and signature were tallied there but there was no whisper about any difference in identity, signature or photograph. Likewise, at the main examination also the identity, signature and photo of the petitioner were tallied by the invigilator and other authorities at the examination hall and finding everything in order, the Commission recommended the name of petitioner to the Collector, West Champaran for appointment of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that if any doubt or discrepancy had been found in the office of Collector and Deputy Collector, it was their duty to refer the matter to the Commission for clarification as it was the Commission which had taken the examination and had made its recommendation and hence it was the Commission which was in proper position to appreciate any such infirmity and hence only after clarification made by the Commission necessary step for lodging F.I.R. etc. should have been taken by the authorities concerned. Even the records of the matter had never been sent by the Commission to the Collectorate of West Champaran and in spite of that such drastic step had been taken against the petitioner. 7. should have been taken by the authorities concerned. Even the records of the matter had never been sent by the Commission to the Collectorate of West Champaran and in spite of that such drastic step had been taken against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was genuine person and had acted legally in the selection process and had supplied the correct and relevant materials and documents including photograph etc., but it was the office of the authority concerned from where some error or discrepancy had been committed by someone and for that the petitioner was being punished. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that authorities themselves cannot decide with respect to the identity and signature without getting it verified by the expert. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq vs. The State of West Bengal reported in A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 488. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon several decisions of High Court and Supreme Court, namely the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Mr. Ranvir Singh vs. the Union of Public Service Commission, reported in A.I.R. 1992 Punjab and Haryana 225; a decision of Calcutta High Court in case of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education & others vs. Roupshanara Momtaz & another reported in A.I.R. 1991 Calcutta 310; the decisions of Apex Court in case of The Board of High School & Intermediate Education U.P., Allahabad and another vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and another reported in A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 875 and in case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others reported in A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 604. 10. Bhajanlal and others reported in A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 604. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3, namely, the State of Bihar and its authorities stated that after recommendation of the Commission vide letter dated 16.01.2008 in which the name of petitioner stood at serial no.36, he and others appeared before the Deputy Collector on 23.03.2005 for getting the certificates and photographs verified and only thereafter it was found that the photograph of petitioner pasted on his original application for appointment and the photograph pasted by the B.D.O., Hasanpur (District-Samastipur) on his identification certificate completely differed, whereafter the said Deputy Collector himself obtained signature of the petitioner in his own presence and found that his signature was different from his signature on the original application. 11. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 submitted that even the identification mark given in his original application was not found on the body of petitioner, who was appearing before the Deputy Collector, hence the matter was brought to the notice of the D.M., West Champaran on whose order an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner vide Bettiah Town P.S. Case No.120 of 2005 for playing fraud and committing forgery for obtaining the post concerned. Hence no appointment letter had ever been issued to the petitioner till date. 12. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 averred that when due to the aforesaid offence committed by the petitioner, the F.I.R. was lodged against him, the petitioner challenged the same before this court in Cr.Misc.No.34991 of 2009, but the said petition was dismissed by a bench of this court vide order dated 05.03.2012 after considering the merit of his claim. 13. Learned counsel for respondent no.4, namely, the Bihar Public Service Commission also opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as fully detailed above and adopted the arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3, namely the State of Bihar and others. 14. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the application form (Ext.Ka) of the main examination was sent to the D.M., West Champaran along with recommendation letter, but photocopy of the said application was kept in the office of the Commission. 14. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the application form (Ext.Ka) of the main examination was sent to the D.M., West Champaran along with recommendation letter, but photocopy of the said application was kept in the office of the Commission. A copy of the said application form was annexed with the writ petition and the photograph on the photocopy of the application form (Ext.Ka), which was annexed with the writ petition, was also the same as it was in second part of the application form (Ext.Kha) which was also kept in the office of the Commission. The handwriting on both the aforesaid documents Ext.Ka and Ext.Kha is the same and they are kept in the office of the Commission. 15. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 averred that Annexure-B to his counter affidavit was the Admit Card with photograph and signature of the petitioner, which was exactly the same as on the main application form of the petitioner, but it was quite clear that someone else wanted to join as the photograph, signature and identification mark of the person appearing for being appointed before the authority completely differed and he was not the same person. 16. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner has relied upon several decisions of the High Court and the Apex Court, in support of his claim and averments. 17. So far the decision of Apex Court in case of Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq (supra) is concerned, it merely states that in the circumstances of that case the court can refuse to place reliance upon the opinion of an expert if it is unsupported by any reasons. Here in the instant case no doubt opinion of any expert has not been obtained but for that purpose a case has been instituted where the photographs, signatures etc. could be verified from the experts. However, from a bare perusal of the two photographs and the two signatures of the petitioner i.e. in the main application and in the application submitted for appointment verified by the local authority, photocopies of which have been annexed to the writ petition, it transpires that the respondents-authorities were not mistaken as the said signatures and photographs definitely do not tally. 18. 18. So far the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of Apex Court in case of The Board of High School & Intermediate Education U.P., Allahabad and another (supra) is concerned, it is with respect to a different matter altogether concerning the nature of evidence for cancelling the examination result of a student. Hence, the said case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Similarly the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and others (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is with respect to First Information Report relating to cognizable offence and quashing of investigation and in that regard categories of cases, in which the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may interfere, were enumerated. But in the instant case, the petitioner has already challenged the First Information Report and the investigation before this court vide Cr.Misc.No.34991 of 2009, which has already been rejected by a bench of this court on merit. Hence the said case laws will not be applicable in this writ petition. 19. So far the decision of Calcutta High Court in case of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education & others (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is with respect to misconduct by a candidate at examination detected in the examination hall itself before depositing answer book. In the instant case, such is not the matter rather the identity of the person, who approached the authority for being selected, was not known and hence the said case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Similarly the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Mr. Ranvir Singh (supra) is also not valid and proper as it is with respect to debarring a candidate from appearing in competitive examination without giving any opportunity of hearing and hence the instant case is a matter with altogether different facts and situation. 20. Ranvir Singh (supra) is also not valid and proper as it is with respect to debarring a candidate from appearing in competitive examination without giving any opportunity of hearing and hence the instant case is a matter with altogether different facts and situation. 20. So far the facts of this case are concerned, the authorities concerned had found three discrepancies; the first was that the identification mark given in petitioner’s original application was not found on his body when he appeared before the Deputy Collector while he was called after the examinations; the second and third discrepancies were that petitioner’s signature and photograph on the main application of the petitioner, which was annexed as Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit did not tally with his signature and photograph given by the person, who came to join claiming to be the petitioner, which was also annexed as Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit. 21. In the said circumstances there was no occasion for the authorities to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for joining the post concerned and the authorities were fully justified in reporting the matter to the police, which instituted a criminal case against the petitioner for investigating the matter and taking proper action in that regard, if the petitioner was found guilty of the offence as alleged against him. The said institution of the police case and the investigation therein were also affirmed by the High Court when they were challenged by the petitioner. 22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.