JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. All the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise from a common FIR No. 16 of 2004. 2. Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2011 stands directed by appellant/convict Jai Prakash against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla, rendered on 20.06.2011 in Session Trial C.C. No. 7-S/7 of 2007, whereby, the latter Court convicted the accused/respondent for his committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. 3. Cr. Appeal No. 417 of 2011 stands directed by the Central Bureau of Investigation for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused Jai Prakash by the learned trial Court for his committing offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC. 4. Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2012 stands directed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla, rendered on 20.06.2011 in Session Trial C.C. No. 15-S/7 of 2007, whereby, the latter Court acquitted accused/respondents Surender Prasad and Asha Sanwal for the offences for which they stand charged and tried by it. Cr. Appeal Nos. 234 and 417 of 2011. 5. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that a charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120- B of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 instituted by CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandigarh against the accused persons. Accused Surender Prasad had been working as Deputy Director, Song and Drama Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India at Chandigarh w.e.f. 11.8.1997. Accused R.K. Meena had been working as lower division clerk in Chandigarh office of Song and Drama Division w.e.f. 1997 to 1999. Song and Drama Division had advertised vacancies of different categories in 1998 vide advertisement No.1/98, S&D published in Employment News September 27 to October, 2, 1998. There were five vacancies in OBC category of performer/dancer for Shimla centre. No vacancy for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category had been notified for Shimla centre and last date for receipt of applications was 10.10.1998. Accused No.2 had been working as panel artist with Shimla Centre of Song and Drama Division for a number of years prior to 1998. Among others, accused No.2 had applied for recruitment to the post of performer under OBC category. Accused No.2 had been working as panel artist with Shimla Centre of Song and Drama Division for a number of years prior to 1998. Among others, accused No.2 had applied for recruitment to the post of performer under OBC category. It had been alleged that accused No.1 by misusing his official position and in connivance with known and unknown officials had appointed ineligible candidates as artists/performers in Shimla centre. Chandigarh office of CBI had received complaint of irregularities in carrying out selection/appointments of artists/performers against Sh. Prem Matiyani, Director Song and Drama Division, New Delhi and some others. Shri R.K. Sangwan, Inspector had been directed to look into the complaint. He had carried out preliminary inquiry and had found a prima facie case against Sh. Prem Matiyani and some others. Accordingly, FIR No. 16/04 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Corruption Act stood registered against the accused. Thereafter conducted the further investigations in the matter and during the course of investigations took into possession all the relevant documents and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 6. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 7. Accused Jai Prakash was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Corruption Act whereas accused Surender Prasad and Accused R.K. Meena were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 120-B, IPC and Section 13(2) of the Corruption Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. However, accused Jai Prakash examined one witness in defence whereas other co-accused did not lead any defence evidence. 8. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against accused/appellant Jai Prakash whereas it acquitted accused/respondents Surender Prasad and R.K. Meena. 9. However, accused Jai Prakash examined one witness in defence whereas other co-accused did not lead any defence evidence. 8. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against accused/appellant Jai Prakash whereas it acquitted accused/respondents Surender Prasad and R.K. Meena. 9. Accused/appellant Jai Prakash stands aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below against accused/appellant Jai Prakash standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. However, he contends qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of accused/respondent Surender Prasad and R.K. Meena standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2012. 11. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that a charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 instituted by CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandigarh against the accused persons. Accused Surender Prasad had been working as Deputy Director, Song and Drama Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India at Chandigarh w.e.f. 11.8.1997. Song and Drama Division had advertised vacancies of different categories in 1999 vide advertisement No.1/99, S&D published in Employment News November 20 to November, 26, 1999. There were six vacancies (SC1, OBC 3 & unreserved 2) of performer/dancer for Shimla centre. No vacancy for scheduled tribe category had been notified and last date for receipt of applications was 07.12.1999. Among others, accused No.2 had applied for recruitment to the post of performers/dancers. There were six vacancies (SC1, OBC 3 & unreserved 2) of performer/dancer for Shimla centre. No vacancy for scheduled tribe category had been notified and last date for receipt of applications was 07.12.1999. Among others, accused No.2 had applied for recruitment to the post of performers/dancers. It had been alleged that accused No.1 by mis-using his official position and in connivance with known and unknown officials had appointed ineligible candidates as artists/performers in Shimla Centre. Chandigarh office of CBI had received complaint of irregularities in carrying out selection/appointments of artists/performers against Sh. Prem Matiyai, Director Song and Drama Division, New Delhi, accused No.1 and some others. PW-22 R.k. Sangwan, Inspector ahd been directed to look into the complaint. PW-22 had carried out preliminary inquiry and had found a prima facie case against Sh. Matiyani, accused No.1 and some others. Accordingly, FIR No.16/04 under Sections 420 &120-B IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Corruption Act stood registered against the accused. During the course of the investigation, it was found that accused No.2 was not eligible to the post on account of age bar. However, accused No.1 had entertained her application as scheduled tribe candidate. Accused No.2 was not a member of scheduled tribe community. She had produced false scheduled tribe certificate. 12. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 13. Accused Surender Prasad was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the Corruption Act whereas accused Asha Sanwal was charged by the learned trial Court for hers committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC and Section 13(2) of the Corruption Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. However, accused Asha Sanwal examined one witness in defence whereas other co-accused did not lead any defence evidence. 14. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 15. However, accused Asha Sanwal examined one witness in defence whereas other co-accused did not lead any defence evidence. 14. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 15. The Central Bureau of Investigation stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents have with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below in favour of the accused/respondents standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. Cr. Appeal Nos. 234 and 417 of 2011. 17. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 18. Accused/appellant/convict on anvil of Ex.PW1/27, a forged caste certificate pronouncing his belonging to the “Chamar” community, obtained appointment against the post of Performer, Song and Drama Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shimla Centre. The factum of Ex.PW1/27 holding forged recitals also its holding the forged signature of its purported signatory stands clinched by the deposition of PW 18, the Executive Magistrate Kandaghat. Prior to the accused/convict submitting Ex.PW1/27 before the authority concerned, he had submitted his application form comprised in Ex.PW1/1 before the competent authority for obtaining appointment against the post of Performer. Also convict Jai Prakash submitted an affidavit comprised in Ex.PW1/4 with recitals occurring therein of his belonging to the OBC category besides it contains a recital of occurrence of death in his family precluding him to obtain the apposite caste certificate which he promised to furnish before the authority concerned within a week. Accused/convict Jai Prakash stood appointed under appointment letter comprised in Ex.PW1/35 against the post of Performer in the Song and Drama Division, Shimla Center. Accused/convict Jai Prakash stood appointed under appointment letter comprised in Ex.PW1/35 against the post of Performer in the Song and Drama Division, Shimla Center. In pursuance whereof accused/convict Jai Prakash under Ex.PW1/36 reported for duties on 7.5.1999. The report of the expert concerned unravels of the aforesaid exhibits holding the signatures of accused/convict Jai Prakash. Since, the employers of accused Jai Prakash, as apparent on a perusal of Ex.PW1/39 stood dissatisfied with the caste certificate issued by the Councilor, M.C. Shimla, qua its holding portrayals of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, they insisted upon the accused/convict to obtain the relevant certificate from the SDO/Magistrate concerned. Furthermore, a perusal of Ex.PW1/40 unravels of the employer of the accused/convict directing the withholding of the salary of the accused till his furnishing a valid caste certificate. Consequently, the accused produced original of Ex. PW1/27 before PW-2, who testifies of his from it preparing its xerox copy comprised in Ex.PW1/27 whereafter he returned the original to the accused/convict. 19. The only submission addressed before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel for rendering unsustainable the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court stands hinged upon the factum of PW1/27 though standing opined by the handwriting expert concerned to be in the handwriting of the accused/convict yet no tenacity being imputable to the opinion of the expert concerned qua the prime factum aforesaid, given it standing recorded on a photo copy of the original. However, the force of the aforesaid submission, is to be tested in coagulation vis-a-vis the affidavit of the accused/convict comprised in Ex.PW1/14 wherein recitals occur of his belonging to the OBC category besides its holding recitals qua death in his family deterring him to obtain the requisite certificate from the competent authority which he undertook to produce within one week before PW-2 besides in entwinement with Ex.PW1/39, exhibit whereof embodies of insistence of the employer upon accused/convict to obtain the relevant caste certificate from the competent authority, also in coalescence with the reflections existing in Ex.PW1/40, qua his employer directing the withholding of his salary till he furnishes a valid caste certificate. In addition to it, the testification of PW-2, who deposes of his on the accused producing the original certificate before him, his preparing a xerox copy therefrom whereafter he returned it to the accused/convict is also enjoined to be born in mind. In addition to it, the testification of PW-2, who deposes of his on the accused producing the original certificate before him, his preparing a xerox copy therefrom whereafter he returned it to the accused/convict is also enjoined to be born in mind. The reading of the exhibits aforesaid prompt a conclusion of the accused to protect his appointment against the post of Performer in the Song and Drama Division, Shimla Centre against a reserved category also to facilitate his salary being released, he furnished as deposed by PW-2, the original certificate before the latter, who after preparing a xerox copy from it, returned the original to him. Consequently, it appears of the accused for screening himself from penal culpability destroyed the original of Ex.PW1/27. As a corollary when he defacilitated the collection by the Investigating Officer concerned of the original of Ex.PW1/27 whereas, Ex.PW1/27 comprising the xerox copy thereof remained with PW-2, the opinion of the handwriting expert thereon with a proclamation occurring therein of its holding the signatures of the accused holds with all force connectivity vis-a-vis the accused/convict. Naturally, the attendant material afore referred comprised in the exhibits aforesaid evince a firm conclusion of none else than the accused being the author of original of Ex.PW1/27 also with Ex.PW1/27 being its xerox copy, any rendition of an opinion thereon, given the apparent factum of the accused holding possession of its original, also his destroying it for screening himself from inculpation, hence constituted the relevant material for its standing examined by the expert concerned. In sequel, even, if an opinion stands recorded on a xerox copy of the original by the handwriting expert concerned, nonetheless, it is to be held to be an opinion recorded qua a document prepared from its original, original whereof stood held by the accused which he subsequently took to destroy. In aftermath, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused/appellant given the aforesaid exceptional peculiarities of the case being devoid of merit stands rejected. Consequently, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant/convict do not suffer from any perversity and absurdity of non appreciation and misappreciation of material on record. 20. Consequently, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant/convict do not suffer from any perversity and absurdity of non appreciation and misappreciation of material on record. 20. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court concludes that the sentence as imposed upon accused/convict Jai Prakash by the learned trial Court is just and equitable. Consequently, the prayer of the learned Assistant Solicitor General for enhancing the sentence imposed upon accused/convict Jai Prakash stands rejected. 21. The inculpatory role which stand ascribed to accused/respondent Surender Prasad is of his facilitating the selection besides appointment of the accused/convict Jai Prakash comprised in his placing the relevant documents for consideration before the Selection Committee. However, the minimal role aforesaid ascribed to accused Surender Prasad is not sufficient to sustain findings of conviction against him nor can it be concluded therefrom of his holding complicity with the accused/convict, given the palpable factum of accused/convict Jai Prakash producing before him certificates holding portrayals of his belonging to the reserved category hence leading accused Surender Prakash to bonafide believe of his holding the said capacity. Predominantly, also when accused/convict had also under his affidavit comprised in Ex.PW1/14 promised to furnish the requisite certificate before PW-2 also garners an inference of co-accused Surender Prasad not holding any complicity with accused/convict Jai Prakash. Consequently, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court qua accused Surender Prasad do not suffer from any absurdity and perversity of non appreciation and mis appreciation of material on record. 22. The incriminatory role ascribed to accused R.K. Meena has emanated from his preparing a note comprised in Ex.PW1/42 wherein the letters OBC stand struck off, whereupon they stand replaced by the letters SC. Since, in Ex.PW1/27 reflections occur of accused/convict Jai Prakash belonging to 'Chamar’ community which is palpably a Scheduled Caste category, it appears of hence accused R.K. Meena in consonance therewith striking letters OBC whereupon he replaced them with SC. The alterations aforesaid do not invite any criminal culpability vis-a-vis accused R.K. Meena. Also with the altered letters SC in replacement of letters OBC standing not opined by the expert concerned to be in the handwriting of accused No.3, renders the aforesaid inculpation of accused R.K. Meena to be frail. The alterations aforesaid do not invite any criminal culpability vis-a-vis accused R.K. Meena. Also with the altered letters SC in replacement of letters OBC standing not opined by the expert concerned to be in the handwriting of accused No.3, renders the aforesaid inculpation of accused R.K. Meena to be frail. Furthermore, the inculpation of accused R.K. Meena qua his destroying the relevant references made by PW-2 to the Tehisldar and also the latter's replies thereto, appears to be surmisal in the light of no evidence existing in portrayal of the references made by PW-2 to the Tehsildar concerned and the latter's replies thereto standing received in the office at Chandigarh. When the apposite references stood not received at the apposite office, accused R.K. Meena had no occasion to destroy them. Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2012. 23. Accused No.2 Asha Sanwal submitted an application comprised in Ex.PW1/10 in the year 1997 for hers standing considered for selection besides for appointment against the relevant post. However, the said application stood rejected. In pursuance to an advertisement, comprised in Ex.PW7/B, issued by the department concerned whereby the relevant categories of posts/vacancies stood proposed to be filled up by direct recruitment, accused No.2 submitted her application comprised in Ex.PW1/24. In the application aforesaid, she is alleged to make a disclosure of hers belonging to the scheduled tribe category whereas uncontrovertedly she holds membership of “Brahamin” community. Also she on account of bar of age being ineligible to stake a claim for her selection besides appointment against the relevant post advertised by the department concerned is, hence, alleged to contrive the aforesaid endeavour to overcome the age bar even when the relevant post stood not reserved to be filled up from amongst the scheduled tribe category. A perusal of Ex.PW1/25 makes a disclosure therein of accused No.2 Asha Sanwal standing fathered by Puran Chand whereas uncontrovertedly, the father of accused No.2 Asha Sanwal is Puran Chand Sanwal. Consequently with dissimilarity in the uncontroverted parentage of accused No.2 vis-a-vis her parentage displayed in Ex.PW1/25, renders it to be unconnected to accused No.2 Asha Sanwal. A perusal of Ex.PW1/25 makes a disclosure therein of accused No.2 Asha Sanwal standing fathered by Puran Chand whereas uncontrovertedly, the father of accused No.2 Asha Sanwal is Puran Chand Sanwal. Consequently with dissimilarity in the uncontroverted parentage of accused No.2 vis-a-vis her parentage displayed in Ex.PW1/25, renders it to be unconnected to accused No.2 Asha Sanwal. In sequel, merely on the existence of Ex.PW1/25 with a false display therein of hers belonging to the scheduled tribe community, the prosecution cannot given the palpable dissimilarity existing therein vis-a-vis her parentage reflected in Ex.PW1/25 with her uncontroverted parentage, hold any vigour to contend of it succeeding in proving its charge of hers fabricating Ex. PW1/25, it, for reiteration remaining unconnected with her identity also with no evidence existing on record of accused No.2 producing along with her application, comprised in Ex.PW1/24, the relevant caste certificate, comprised in Ex.PW1/25, rather with the aforesaid purported forged certificate comprised in Ex.PW1/25 purportedly fabricated by accused No.2, standing argued by the learned PP concerned to stand merely attached with her application Ex.PW1/24 is also insufficient to nail a firm conclusion of accused No.2 producing it, for availing a wrongful gain from the department concerned for hers securing an appointment against the relevant post in the relevant category advertised by the department concerned. 24. Furthermore, application Ex.PW1/24 wherein under scorings exist of accused No.2 purportedly making in the relevant column an entry qua hers belonging to the said category is not sufficient to conclude of hers belonging to the said category, given the acquiescence by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-22 of the entry aforesaid existing against the relevant column of Ex.PW1/24 standing not scribed by accused No.2. Since no opinion from the expert concerned stood concerted to elicited by the prosecution qua the authorship of the relevant entry of “schedule tribe” occurring in Ex.PW1/24, its occurrence/authorship cannot stand imputed to accused No.2. In sequel, accused No.2 cannot be concluded to either forge Ex.PW1/25 nor she can be concluded to be the author of entry 'schedule tribe' occurring in Ex.PW1/24 whereupon it is apt to conclude of the prosecution failing to prove the factum of hers for deriving from the department concerned a wrongful gain of employment falsely displaying therein of hers belonging to the “schedule tribe” category. 25. Furthermore, the relevant advertisement comprised in Ex.PW7/B in pursuance whereto accused No.2 submitted her application, comprised in Ex. 25. Furthermore, the relevant advertisement comprised in Ex.PW7/B in pursuance whereto accused No.2 submitted her application, comprised in Ex. PW1/24 , holds a prescription qua the age limit of the aspiring candidates on 7.12.1999 being not beyond 27 years whereas with accused No.2 thereat evidently crossing the aforesaid limit of age, hers hence being ineligible for being considered for selection besides for appointment, stands espoused to constrain her to obtain a “schedule tribe” certificate comprised in Ex. PW1/25 also to constrain her to make an entry in Ex.PW1/24 qua hers belonging to the schedule tribe category, imperatively for hers to capitalize upon relaxation qua age standing enjoined to be meted by the authority concerned for the aforesaid category, whereupon she rendered herself amenable for penal in culpability for producing Ex.PW1/25 besides for penal in culpability to authoring the relevant entry recorded in Ex.PW1/24. However, when for the aforesaid reasons this Court discounts the espousal of the prosecution also when as manifested by a rendition of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1115/97, titled as Sohan Lal Passi versus Government of India ,of, relaxation of age standing afforded to a category alike accused No.2, rendition whereof of the Central Administrative Tribunal stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rather hence foisted in her a primary right to obtain relaxation in age from the one displayed in the relevant advertisement comprised in Ex.PW7/B from the department concerned whereupon hence she was eligible to be considered for selection besides for appointment to the post for which she applied for to the concerned department under her application comprised in Ex.PW1/24. Necessarily, hence there was no occasion for her to obtain a schedule tribe certificate comprised in Ex.PW1/25 nor there was any occasion for her to make relevant entry in Ex.PW1/24, especially when the said entry in Ex.PW1/24 stands not proven to be authored by her. 26. The incriminatory role assigned to accused No.1 Surender Prasad is of his after the relevant cut off date accepting the application of accused No.2, comprised in Ex.PW1/24. However, the aforesaid ascription of an incriminatory role to accused No.1 stands unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence. Merely, on account of an omission on his part to not scrutinize the application aforesaid would not per se render him liable for penal inculpation, especially when he was not responsible for diarizing Ex.PW1/24 rather was merely a custodian of the applications. However, the aforesaid ascription of an incriminatory role to accused No.1 stands unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence. Merely, on account of an omission on his part to not scrutinize the application aforesaid would not per se render him liable for penal inculpation, especially when he was not responsible for diarizing Ex.PW1/24 rather was merely a custodian of the applications. Since, the apposite penal in culpability was enjoined to be fastened upon the diarist concerned, as a corollary its standing fastened upon accused No.1 was grossly untenable. Also with PW-1 and PW-2 depose of accused No.1 holding the responsibility to scrutinize the relevant applications whereas with no post qua the “schedule tribe” category standing advertised, rendered the entertainment of Ex.PW1/24 by accused No.1, wherein recitals occur of accused No.2 belonging to schedule tribe category, besides its forwarding by him to the authorities concerned for facilitating issuance of call letters to her for enabling her to participate in the relevant tests whereupon accused No.1 is canvassed to be holding complicity with accused No.2 for ensuring hers obtaining an unlawful advantage rendering him hence amenable for penal inculpation. However, the aforesaid incriminatory role ascribed by the prosecution to accused No.2 staggers in the face of PW-1 and PW-2 being evidently liable for checking and processing of the relevant applications for their further processing, in pursuance whereof they prepared the relevant check list. Since, both PW-1 and PW- 2 omitted to detect on their scrutinizing the relevant applications of the applicants, qua hers, in pursuance to advertisement comprised in Ex.PW7/B, being unsuitable for hers being considered for selection besides appointment to the relevant post no penal in culpability as stand fastened upon accused No.1 for hence facilitating the participation of accused No.2 in the relevant test besides ensuring her selection is fastenbale qua him. Even otherwise when for reasons aforesaid accused No.2 did not either produce Ex.PW1/25 to the authority concerned nor authored the relevant entry inEx.PW1/24 rather hers standing bestowed with a vested right on the anchorage of a judicial verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal to obtain relaxation in age alike para meteria categories renders inconsequential the effect of the apposite recitals in Ex.PW1/24 and in Ex.PW1/25 also effaces the effect, if any, of despite accused No.2 being ineligible given hers attracting the age bar, qua her application yet standing untenably entertained also benumbs the espousal of the prosecution of her selection besides appointment standing tainted with a vice of hers obtaining it by colluding with accused No.1. 27. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of misappreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 28. Consequently, all the aforementioned appeals are dismissed and the judgments of the learned trial Court impugned before this Court are affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.