Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 241 (ORI)

Maguni Chhatria v. Collector, Balangir

2015-04-08

S.N.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.9.2010 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bolangir by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, has approached this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner along with opposite party no.5 and others had participated in the selection process for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker for Gatesarbarpara Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner although eligible in all respect has not been considered rather opposite party no.4 has been considered and selected as Anganwadi Worker of the concerned centre. 3. The petitioner coming to know that the certificate on the basis of which candidature of opposite party no.4 has been considered and selected is a forged certificate has made a complaint before the appellate authority praying therein to struck down selection of opposite party no.4 based upon forged certificate. The petitioner has substantiate her stand before the appellate authority that the school leaving certificate which was obtained from Golmuri Utkal Samaj High School, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand on 28.9.1997 is forged one as the Headmaster of the said school has reported vide his report dated 6.5.2010 that opposite party no.4 was not the student of the said school. Opposite party no.4 appeared before the appellate authority and submitted that the school leaving certificate granted by the school situated at Jamshedpur in the year 1997 but the same has not been challenged prior to 2010 and at the time of selection no objection was made by any person within the stipulated period i.e. within 7 days as provided under the guideline dated 2.5.2007, hence his issue cannot be rejected at this stage. 4. Case of the petitioner is that since opposite party no.4 has committed forgery and got engagement on the basis of forged certificate she has no right to remain in service and the moment it came to the notice of the authority, engagement of the opposite party no.4 is to be struck down on the ground that illegality cannot be perpetuated. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 argued at length and has submitted that order of the appellate authority has passed the order by framing two issues and both the issues are dealt with specific reason and as such order impugned needs no interference. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 argued at length and has submitted that order of the appellate authority has passed the order by framing two issues and both the issues are dealt with specific reason and as such order impugned needs no interference. 6. Further submission has been made on behalf of opposite party that the appellate authority has refused to interfere with the selection process on the ground contained in Clause (d) of the guideline dated 2.5.2007 which provides for making complaint within a period of 7 days. Since objection has been made at a belated stage, appellate authority has rightly rejected claim of the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties at length. 8. The fact which is not in dispute is that in pursuance to the selection process for engagement of Anganwadi Worker the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 was considered and in which opposite party no.4 was selected. 9. The petitioner has raised objection questioning validity of school leaving certificate of opposite party no.4 and her contention was also corroborated from the stand of the Headmaster of the concerned school to the effect that opposite party no.4 was never been a student of that school. 10. Opposite party no.4 had appeared before the appellate authority through her Advocate, he has also not disputed this aspect of the matter, rather he has gone into the provisions as contained in Clause (d) of the guideline dated 2.5.2007 and stated that objection is only to be raised within a period of 7 days. Since school leaving certificate was issued by the school in question in the year 1997 but it had never been question after a long period, at this stage it cannot be questioned. 11. The appellate authority had passed order rejecting claim of the petitioner on the ground that objection has been raised belatedly i.e. beyond the period of 7 days as provided in Clause (d) of the guideline dated 2.5.2007. The appellate authority although has came to conclusion by making observation in the impugned order that “on verification of the letter of Headmaster, Golmori Utkal Samaj High School dt.6.5.2010 and the original S.L.C. of Gouri Panigrahi issued on 1997 it is found that the seal affixed on the letter and the SLC does not tally with each other. 12. The appellate authority although has came to conclusion by making observation in the impugned order that “on verification of the letter of Headmaster, Golmori Utkal Samaj High School dt.6.5.2010 and the original S.L.C. of Gouri Panigrahi issued on 1997 it is found that the seal affixed on the letter and the SLC does not tally with each other. 12. This observation/finding of the appellate authority suggests that the appellate authority was also of the view that there has been manipulation of school leaving certificate but he has given finding solely on the basis of clause (d) of the guideline dated 2.5.2007 which speaks that seven days time will be given for filing of objection. In this context, clause (d) of the guideline dated 2.5.2007 is being reproduced below: “7 days time will be given for filing of objection, if any, by the community on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate.” 13. In this guideline, provision has been made conferring power upon the community to make objection within seven days. This provision does not entitle any candidate to make an objection. Even assuming that seven days has elapsed and after seven days the parties come to know forgery committed on the part of the candidate and selected by way of producing forged certificate, the said candidate has no right to remain in the post on the ground of forgery which has been discussed in the case of Devendra Kumar –vs- State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 wherein in para-13 which is being reproduced below: “ It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”. (Vide S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu –v- Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1994 SC 853 . In Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs- Beasley reported in (1956)1 QB 702 the Court observed without equivocation that: “ …. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 14. In view of the said principles of law which provides that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 14. In view of the said principles of law which provides that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. If the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be compared with the facts of the instant case, it is admitted position which has also been admitted by the appellate authority that there is discrepancy in the signature of Headmaster and seal affixed on the letter and the school leaving certificate which suggest that some fraud has been committed by the private opposite party. 15. Finding given by the appellate authority that since objection has been raised beyond seven days is based on incorrect finding in view of the settled position of law that illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated and the moment it came to know about the fraud, it is the duty of the authority to rectify the same. On the basis of the said principles, this Court come to conclusion that finding of the Additional District Magistrate passed in the memorandum of appeal is not sustainable and hence the same is hereby set aside. 16. Since on the ground for submission of forged certificate by the opposite party no.4 the candidature of the petitioner could not have been considered, hence the case of the petitioner needs to be considered by the authority concerned. 17. Accordingly, that matter is remitted to the opposite party no.1 who will pass appropriate order afresh within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.