Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 594 (JHR)

Namo Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
ORDER : I.A. No. 5419 of 2015 1. For the reasons carved out in the instant application and there being delay of only one day in filing the accompanied appeal, the same is hereby condoned. 2. I.A. No. 5419 of 2015 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 510 of 2015 1. Aggrieved of order dated 31.7.2015 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1433 of 2010 whereby, challenge to the order of cancellation of appointment of the writ petitioner has been rejected, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. Dr. S.N. Pathak, the learned senior counsel for the appellant referring to the decision of this Court rendered in “Krishnaji and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others” reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 702 contends that after the decision of this Court in the aforesaid case, it was not open to the respondent-State to cancel the appointment of the appellant. Only 932 persons were identified by the respondents who were beneficiaries of malpractice during the selection and thus, the respondents are bound by their own stand. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in ignoring the fact that in “Ranjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others” reported in “ 2009 (4) JLJR 543 this Court quashed the order of dismissal from service passed on the allegation of overwriting and interpolation in the Master Chart and therefore, the appellant's appointment cannot be cancelled on similar ground of overwriting in the Master Chart. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the decision of this Court in the aforesaid two cases would not govern the case of the appellant inasmuch as, this Court did not curtail the power of the State to conduct inquiry in individual cases. It is submitted that the decision in “Ranjay Kumar Singh” and other cases were rendered in peculiar facts of the case and those are not applicable in appellant's case. 5. We have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The appellant-writ petitioner was a candidate for the post of Constable and he was declared successful in the tests conducted. The appellant vide letter dated 03.04.2007 was directed to report for duty by 20.04.2007 however, on verification of his records when manipulation, interpolation etc. were detected, his joining was not accepted. 6. The appellant-writ petitioner was a candidate for the post of Constable and he was declared successful in the tests conducted. The appellant vide letter dated 03.04.2007 was directed to report for duty by 20.04.2007 however, on verification of his records when manipulation, interpolation etc. were detected, his joining was not accepted. Thereafter, order dated 26.05.2007 cancelling his appointment was issued on the allegation of overwriting and interpolation in the Master Chart. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P. (S) No.4829 of 2007 and this Court vide, order dated 15.07.2008 quashed the order of cancellation of his appointment on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. The appellant was thereafter, issued show-cause notice dated 29.09.2008, to which he submitted his reply on 01.10.2008 however, by order dated 19.12.2008 his candidature was cancelled. 7. Before the Writ Court the respondents took a stand that the appellant had applied for the post of Constable after the expiry of the last date for submitting applications. He was given Roll No. 4011-A which was found forged. His name did not figure in the list of candidates who had successfully completed the physical test. During re-measurement his height was also found to be different from his height mentioned in the Master Chart. 8. It appears that the entire selection pursuant to Advertisement No.01 of 2004 in four districts namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih was cancelled on 10th December, 2005. Batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court and vide judgment and order dated 10th November, 2006 in W.P. (S) No.1242 of 2006 titled “Krishnaji and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others” and batch cases, this Court quashed the order cancelling appointments in the four districts, however 932 candidates who were identified by the Inquiry Officer as beneficiaries of malpractice during selection were excluded from consideration. 9. In so far as, decisions in “Krishnaji” (supra) and “Ranjay Kumar Singh” (supra) are concerned, it has to be kept in mind that those decisions were rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is well-settled that, a judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what can be read into it. In “Ambica Quarry Works Vs. It is well-settled that, a judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what can be read into it. In “Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujrat” (1987) 1 SCC 213 ” it has been held that a decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “418. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it ….....” 10. In Krishnaji’s case (supra), this Court interfered with the order of mass cancellation of appointments primarily on the ground that the Inspector-General of Police, who conducted an inquiry had identified 932 candidates as beneficiaries of malpractice in selection. In the said case, this Court did not restrict any further inquiry in the matter. The import of the decision in Krishnaji case is that 932 candidates who were identified as beneficiaries cannot be selected. In Ranjay Kumar Singh’s case (supra), this Court when found that the said applicant was dismissed from service on the basis of the inquiry report dated 31.10.2005, which was the very basis on which the decision to cancel earlier selection was taken, which decision was quashed in “Krishnaji” case, quashed the order of dismissal from service. 11. It is not in dispute that in compliance of the order dated 15.07.2008 in W.P. (S) No. 4829 of 2007 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and he submitted his reply which was considered by the respondents, which is apparent on bare perusal of order dated 19.12.2008 whereby, the candidature/selection of the appellant was cancelled. The appellant no doubt, is the beneficiary of interpolation and fraud committed during the selection. Centuries ago, Chief Justice Edvard Coke proclaimed “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and others” reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 observed as under : “34. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and others” reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 observed as under : “34. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court.” 12. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with this aspect referring to the decision in “Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.” reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 whereunder, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “13. It is a 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 law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” (vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p.712) “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.” 13. Viewed thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the writ Court, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and resultantly, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.