Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1493 (JHR)

Kameshwar Prasad Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-22

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
ORDER : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 22.5.2007 issued by Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman, Selection Board pertaining to cancellation of selection of the petitioner as Constable and for direction the respondents to consider the appointment of petitioner on the post of Constable as he comes within the Zone of consideration by qualifying in the entire tests and being declared successful by the Selection Board. The facts as disclosed in the writ application in brief is that in pursuance to advertisement published for appointment of Constable by advertisement No. 1/2004, the petitioner submitted his application and was allotted Roll No. 816A and the admit card was also issued to the petitioner as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. After following the entire process of selection, the petitioner was declared successful and his roll number was mentioned in the final list. Since, no action was taken, the petitioner represented before the respondent No. 4 for consideration of his case for appointment on the post of Constable. Vide order dated 22.5.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma-cum-Chairman, Selection Board, has been stated that petitioner's candidature has been cancelled as his name was pasted on the name of other candidate in the master chart. It is a forged one, and as such, his candidature stood cancelled as evident from the letter dated 22.5.2007 (Annexure-5 to the writ application). It is being averred in the writ application, the petitioner does not figure among the 932 candidates and manipulation or interpolation of the master chart, the petitioner cannot be accountable for the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered in Annexure-6 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of the aforesaid order dated 22.5.2007, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondents are the all custodian of the master chart and any manipulation therein, the petitioner cannot be blamed from the same, therefore, action of the respondents in cancelling the appointment amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in 2006 (4) JUR 702 and 2009 (4) JLJR 543 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases, the case of the petitioner ought to be considered by the respondents. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that on careful and meticulous examination of the master chart, the name of the petitioner was found entered by pasting a paper over the original entry. The master chart was carefully scrutinized by the Selection Board and it was detected that the original entry was that of one Navlesh Shanker son of Pradumen Shankar of Village-Basantpur, P.S.-Parasbigha, District-Jehanabad. The Selection Board found that forgery had been committed in the master chart and in fact the petitioner has not applied for the post and even if he had applied, he was not selected and he got his name pasted on the master chart by committing forgery. He has also deprived the original candidate Navlesh Shakar from the lawful appointment by committing forger/. It has further been submitted that the name of the petitioner was in the list of 112 candidates, whose result was kept pending due to indulgence in malpractice. It has further been submitted that the petitioner's entry has been made by pasting a paper over the entry of Navlesh Shankar in Master Chart No. 206 Serial No. 816A Koderma, which has been done illegally, as such, the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. 5. Mr. Shahid Khan, learned Standing Counsel (Mines) has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State has assiduously submitted that the advertisement was of the year 2004. In the meantime, 13 years have been elapsed and due to efflux of time, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner, at this distance of time. Apart from that the petitioner has been indulging in malpractices/manipulations, therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 6. In the meantime, 13 years have been elapsed and due to efflux of time, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner, at this distance of time. Apart from that the petitioner has been indulging in malpractices/manipulations, therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the evidences on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner does not make out a case for interference, due to the following facts and reasons:-- (I) In the instant case, in pursuance to advertisement No. 1 of 2004, the selection was made and the name of the petitioner found place in the list of 112 candidates whose result was kept pending due to indulgence in malpractice. The appointment of the petitioner was kept pending and subsequently cancelled because of manipulation in the master chart. Certainly the petitioner is beneficiary of the manipulation, so he cannot claim ignorance that the respondents are the custodian of the master chart. It is settled position of law which (sic) fraud vitiates everything. So far as fraud in appointment is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 [: 2013 (3) JUR (SC) 487] held, at paragraph No. 13 which reads as under:-- "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 the law."Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. 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." Hence, the manipulation/interpolation though detected at a later stage, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of manipulation. (II) It is a settled principles of law that inclusion of name in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to appointment as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India as reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 . (II) It is a settled principles of law that inclusion of name in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to appointment as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India as reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 . (III) Having gone through the records, it appears that the decision cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the instant case, and therefore, petitioner cannot take any benefit of the aforesaid decisions. The decisions are clearly distinguishable. In that view of the aforesaid reasons, as a logical sequitur relief sought by the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.