Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 539 (UTT)

Gyan Prakash v. Union of India

2014-11-26

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner was a candidate for selection on the post of Assistant Publication and Documentation Officer in the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun (from hereinafter referred as “Institute”). The above Institute is an autonomous body, which is totally funded by the Government of India, and therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was one of the candidates for the single post. Since the selected candidate one Sri Naresh Chandra Verma failed to join on the said post, the petitioner is the only eligible candidate whose name figures in the “select waiting list”, and he is liable to be given appointment on the said post. 3. The respondents, however, object that the entire documents of the selected candidate (N.C. Verma) were found to be forged, and therefore, notices were issued to him, but he did not appear in spite of the service of the notices. In such an event, the said Institute was to appoint the petitioner on the said post, but subject to the verification of his documents. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been further stated that there was some complaints against the petitioner and the petitioner had not given a “No Objection Certificate” from his employer i.e. Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, Lucknow (in short “CISH”). 5. As far as the No Objection Certificate is concerned, the petitioner was working on contractual basis and the said Institute i.e. CISH does not give “No Objection Certificate” to employees who are working on contractual basis. Hence, there is no need for “No Objection Certificate”. 6. Regarding the second objection that there is a complaint against the petitioner by one Sri R.K. Mishra, Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Library Association, Lucknow that some of the documents of the petitioner, pertaining to his qualifications are forged and the petitioner is not a qualified person. However, on verification it was found that there is no such association in Lucknow nor any person by the name of the complainant exists. The respondents on their part have also not been able to establish that the documents submitted by the petitioner are forged or fabricated. 7. The petitioner on the other hand has given categorical averments to this Court that all his documents and degrees or certificates are genuine and the respondents have unnecessarily reacted on an anonymous complaint. The respondents on their part have also not been able to establish that the documents submitted by the petitioner are forged or fabricated. 7. The petitioner on the other hand has given categorical averments to this Court that all his documents and degrees or certificates are genuine and the respondents have unnecessarily reacted on an anonymous complaint. The petitioner has further argued that in instead of giving appointment to the petitioner they have now re-advertised the vacancy. 8. The petitioner, in pursuance of the said advertisement has admittedly again applied for the said post. Be that as it may, the fact remains that since the selected candidate did not join the post and the only other name in the select waiting list being that of the petitioner the Institute ought to have given the appointment to the petitioner after verification of his documents. 9. There is nothing before this Court which may suggest that the Institute has verified these documents and has then come to a conclusion that these are forged documents. In the absence of this, the refusal to appointment to the petitioner does not seem to be justified. The respondent Institute is an instrumentality of the State. It must act in a manner which is just and fair. If the credentials of the petitioner are established and this must be established independent of any complaint on due verification of these documents, then petitioner should get the appointment. 10. In view thereof, a mandamus is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the said post on which he has been selected. However, it shall only be done, after due verification of the documents of the petitioner. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the Institute in verification of his documents. After the Institute records its satisfaction regarding the veracity of these documents, it shall issue appointment letter to the petitioner. In case the respondents come to the conclusion that these documents are indeed fake, they shall reject the candidature of the petitioner by passing speaking order and in that event Institute is at liberty to proceed in pursuance of the advertisement published by it. 11. Let the needful be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.