Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1101 (HP)

Atti Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-08-20

P.S.RANA

body2014
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana Judge Order: Present civil writ petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India to quash the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work on contract basis and also to quash renewal thereof in pursuance to agreements Annexure P-21 and P-22 with retrospective effect. It is pleaded that in alternative fresh selection process and interview be held. It is further pleaded that selections of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are contrary to law and contrary to procedure for the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work. It is further pleaded that petitioner initially filed the Original Application No. 524 of 2008 before the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. It is further pleaded that subsequently said original application was transferred to Hon’ble High Court and registered as CWP (T) No. 478 of 2008 and further pleaded that Hon’ble High Court of H.P. disposed of CWP (T) No. 478 of 2008. Contempt Petition No. 287 of 2010 was also filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. It is further pleaded that respondents replied that petitioner stood much low in the merit list. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 3 and 4 have produced forged and fabricated experience certificate in order to get employment to the post to which both were ineligible. It is further pleaded that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have obtained the employment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and they could not be permitted to continue in service on contractual basis and their employment be terminated with retrospective effect. 2. Per contra, reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pleading therein that replying respondents department issued advertisement for engagement of Crafts Instructors on contract basis in various trades for newly opened Industrial Training Institute and further pleaded that on dated 8.9.2007 interview was conducted by Selection Committee constituted by replying respondents in which petitioner also appeared along with other candidates interviewed for engagement for the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work on contract basis. It is further pleaded that candidates who were found eligible and fulfilled the requisite essential education and professional qualifications including experiences as per existing recruitment and promotion rules required for the post under reference were engaged on contract basis. It is further pleaded that respondents Nos. It is further pleaded that candidates who were found eligible and fulfilled the requisite essential education and professional qualifications including experiences as per existing recruitment and promotion rules required for the post under reference were engaged on contract basis. It is further pleaded that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were employed in order of merit as well as experience certificates produced before the Selection Committee. It is further pleaded that undertakings were also given by candidates upon the bio-data form/application forms that information given by the candidates was true and if statement given would found to be false or incorrect then candidature would be cancelled. It is further pleaded that petitioner did not challenge the certificates submitted by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 at the time of selection process. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 3. Per contra separate reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 pleading therein that petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable on the concept of res-judicata. It is further pleaded that earlier petition filed on the same cause of action was ordered to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that Selection Committee had considered the certificates in accordance with law and replying respondent found more meritorious and rightly selected for the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work. It is further pleaded that earlier writ petition on the same cause of action already stood dismissed and present subsequent writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Following point arises for determination in this civil writ petition: 1. Whether services of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work on contract basis are liable to be terminated in view of forged and fictitious experience certificates submitted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as alleged? Findings on point No.1:- 5. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 namely Santosh Kumari and Ravi Lata Sharma submitted forged and fictitious certificates for appointment to the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work and on this ground present civil writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 3 and 4 namely Santosh Kumari and Ravi Lata Sharma submitted forged and fictitious certificates for appointment to the post of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work and on this ground present civil writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case it is proved on record that CWP (T) No. 478 of 2008 titled Atti Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others was filed and same was disposed of by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on dated 27.10.2009. The parties in CWP(T) No. 478 of 2008 decided on dated 27.10.2009 and in civil writ petition No. 2051 of 2012-A are same. The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. vide order dated 27.10.2009 held that petitioner had assailed the appointments of private respondents on the basis of interview held on dated 8.9.2007. Hon’ble High Court further held that initially private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 namely Santosh Kumar and Ravi Lata Sharma were offered the appointment for a period of one year. The Hon’ble High Court of H.P. held that in case their contract would renew in future the case of petitioner would also be considered along with them at the time of making fresh appointments and petition was disposed of finally on dated 27.10.2009. It is also proved on record that thereafter COPC No. 287 of 2010 titled Atti Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others was filed before Hon’ble High Court of H.P. and it was disposed of by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court on dated 21.4.2011. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. held that at the time of renewal of contract on contract basis 119 candidates appeared for three posts of Instructor Embroidery and Needle work wherein petitioner had placed her invalid testimonials and even marks were awarded to the petitioner as five out of total five marks on the basis of invalid certificate but merit list of the petitioner was much low and she was not selected and petitioner could not given employment. Therefore, Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. dismissed COPC No. 287 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and held that petitioner would be considered for further appointment on her own merit. Plea of petitioner that respondent Nos. Therefore, Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. dismissed COPC No. 287 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and held that petitioner would be considered for further appointment on her own merit. Plea of petitioner that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have submitted forged and fictitious certificates cannot be decided in the writ petition because matter of forged and fictitious certificate is matter of complicated question of fact. It is well settled law that complicated question of fact should not be decided in writ petition and should be decided in Civil Court by filing suit for declaration. Hence it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give any finding qua factum of forged and fictitious experience certificates in present civil writ petition. 6. In view of findings on point No.1, writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed and it is held that complicated question of fact of forged and fictitious experience certificates cannot be decided in present writ petition and it is held that petitioner has alternative remedy to file suit for declaration before competent Civil Court of law for declaring that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have obtained job on the basis of forged and fictitious experience certificates. Petition stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.