Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 751 (JHR)

Azij Ansari v. Union of India

2014-07-17

AMITAV K.GUPTA, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
ORDER Per Amitav K. Gupta, J : This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure – 8), passed in Original Application No.85 of 2011 (R), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short CAT), Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi) and also to quash the order dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure – 3) letter No.DEC/ 4/Camp/11/2008/Gr. D, whereby, an application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that his father late Charkoo was working as Bridge Porter under CWC/BRR at Kumardhubi and he died in harness on 04.12.2007 leaving behind his wife, Kherun Bibi, four sons namely, 1. Majid Ansari, 2. Aziz Ansari (applicant / petitioner), 3. Samim Ansari, 4. Ainul Ansari and one daughter namely, Shakila Bibi, who is married; that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment for the post of Group – D category and submitted his certificate of educational qualification showing that he has passed Class – IXth exam and he had left the school on 31.12.1995; that the mother of the petitioner and other legal heirs of his late father have no objection to the appointment of the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner was informed that there was another educational certificate of the petitioner, which was said to have been granted by the Government Middle School, Kumardih, whereupon, petitioner filed representation dated 14.08.2008 clarifying that he had passed from the Mandakini High School, Bada Jamua, Dhanbad and the said certificate should be considered and representation to this effect was also filed by the mother of the petitioner on 14.08.2008. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer by letter No.DEC/4/Camp/11/2008/Gr. D dated 04.09.2008. The said rejection order was not communicated and a representation was filed by this petitioner on 29.01.2009 and rejection letter dated 04.09.2008 was communicated and thereafter repeated representations were made for consideration of his appointment by the petitioner on the basis of the certificate granted by the Mandakini High School, Bada Jamua, Dhanbad, but the respondent authority did not pass any order, whereupon, the petitioner filed Original Application No.85 of 2011(R) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi), which was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order. 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondent authority should have considered the fact that the petitioner had passed Class – IXth exam from Mandakini High School, Bada Jamua, Dhanbad and rejection of the said certificate despite the representation given by the mother of the petitioner to consider the same, is arbitrary and malafide act of the respondent, which is in violation of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India; that the order of rejection in O.A. No. 85 of 2011(R) by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi) is without appreciating the fact that the certificate issued by the School was genuine and authentic and on the said ground he has prayed to quash the said order dated 04.09.2008 i.e. the Annexure – 3. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents referring to the counter affidavit and submitted that in support of his educational qualification, the petitioner had submitted School Leaving Certificate showing that he had passed Class – VIIIth exam, issued by the Headmaster, Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kumardih, Dhanbad, bearing Sl. No.35 dated 16.04.2005 (Annexure– R-1); that the authenticity of the said school certificate was investigated and it was found to be a false certificate, thus, the petitioner was held not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and communication to that effect was made to him by letter dated 04.09.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted fresh school certificate, issued by the Headmaster, Mandakini High School, Bada Jamua, Dhanbad (Annexure – R-4) bearing Sl. No.76/08 dated 31.07.2008 along with the application in which he has admitted that the school certificate, which was issued by the Headmaster, Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalya, Kumardih, Dhanbad, which was earlier submitted, was a false certificate and this ex-facie reveals that he does not have the required integrity to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. It has been narrated in the counter affidavit that Division Bench of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench had dismissed the application of similar nature by judgment dated 10.01.2008, passed in Original Application No.607 of 2007 (Zahida Khatoon & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). 5. It has been narrated in the counter affidavit that Division Bench of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench had dismissed the application of similar nature by judgment dated 10.01.2008, passed in Original Application No.607 of 2007 (Zahida Khatoon & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). It has further been submitted that as per instruction communicated vide Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway’s letter No.CPO/ SC/SA/PO1/Pt, X (corrsp) dated 27.03.2009 it is stated that while considering the appointment on compassionate ground, if once a fake School certificate is submitted no second chance will be given. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in back drop of the facts apparent on the record, the impugned order requires no interference and letter No.CPO/SC/SA/PO1/Pt, X (corresp) dated 27.03.2009 is in accordance with the policy of the respondents. 7. Having heard learned counsels and on perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed by the petitioner that earlier he had filed a School Leaving Certificate, issued by the Headmaster, Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kumardih, Dhanbad (which is at Annnexure – R-1 to the counter affidavit) and the said certificate was investigated and it is evident that the School Headmaster has made an endorsement to the effect that the certificate was not issued under his signature and in the said certificate the date of admission is mentioned as 21.01.1991 whereas, in Annexure – R–4 i.e. subsequent School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner, issued by the Headmaster, Mandakini High School, Bada Jamua, Dhanbad, wherein the date of admission is mentioned as 22.05.1991 and in the earlier certificate, it has been mentioned that he has passed Class – VIIIth exam, whereas, in the Annexure -R–4, it has been mentioned that he has passed Class – IXth exam. 8. In course of hearing, the petitioner has admitted that earlier School Certificate was false, which reflects that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and he was seeking job on the basis of forged and false documents, which is indicative of his malafide intention and also casts doubt on the integrity of the petitioner. It is also relevant that by letter No.CPO/SC/SA/PO1/Pt, X (corresp) dated 27.03.2009 it was the policy decision of the respondents that while considering the appointment on compassionate grounds, if once a fake certificate is given, no second chance will be given. It is also relevant that by letter No.CPO/SC/SA/PO1/Pt, X (corresp) dated 27.03.2009 it was the policy decision of the respondents that while considering the appointment on compassionate grounds, if once a fake certificate is given, no second chance will be given. The applicant was informed accordingly by letter dated 04.09.2008 and the Tribunal has considered this aspect. It is settled law that appointment on the compassionate ground is not a (corrsp) dated 27.03.2009 that if the certificate is found to be fake no second chance can be given and the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 9. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition and matter of right rather it flows from the scheme formulated by the institutions as per terms and conditions. Admittedly there is specific instruction as noted in the letter CPO/SC/SA/PO1/Pt,X the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on the compassionate ground. Hence, the same is, hereby, rejected.