Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1014 (HP)

Sanju v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-29

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, the appellant has laid challenge to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3338 of 2010 dated 19.11.2010, titled as Narender Singh Vs. State of HP and others, vide which learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by present private respondent, set aside the appointment of appellant against the post of Constable under Scheduled Caste (IRDP) Category, primarily on the ground that on the date when the interview was conducted for the post of Constable, the selected candidate, i.e., present appellant was not in possession of a valid certificate reflecting that he belonged to IRDP family. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of present appellant against the post reserved for SC (IRDP) , on the ground that the family of appellant stood excluded from IRDP on 18.2.2007 and his family had never objected to the said exclusion from the IRDP list and as such, present appellant had tempered certificate to reflect him as a candidate belonging to SC (IRDP) , on the strength which he had procured appointment against the post in issue. 2. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that in the writ petition, appointment of two persons stood challenged i.e., Sanju and Sheetal Kumar. Learned Single Judge has set aside the appointment of Sanju, who is in appeal before us and therefore, we are not concerned with the candidature of other candidate i.e., Sheetal Kumar. 3. While allowing the petition, learned Single Judge taking into consideration the contents of para 5 to 7 of the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 held that it was evident from the stand of the said respondents that on the date when the interview was conducted, Sanju was not in possession of certificate reflecting that he belonged to family in the IRDP Category. Learned Single Judge also held that how and under what circumstances he was considered and appointed was not clarified in the reply save and except mention of the fact that photocopies of certificate were produced by the selected candidate which were also subject matter of departmental/criminal investigation. On these bases, it was held by learned Single Judge that it was obvious that on the date when Sanju appeared for the interview and was selected, he did not satisfy the essential criteria belonging to IRDP family. On these bases, it was held by learned Single Judge that it was obvious that on the date when Sanju appeared for the interview and was selected, he did not satisfy the essential criteria belonging to IRDP family. Accordingly, writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order. I do find it a bit strange that the selection which is presided over by high ranking police officials (Selection Committee) should ignore the very basic criteria to be followed for selection and appointment. I also find that despite the fact that the writ petition having been filed on 16th June, 2010, instead of proceeding with the inquiry expeditiously, it seems to have been kept on the back burner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order Annexure:P5/G has, in fact, been passed in accordance with law and that the exclusion of the name of the family of respondent No.4 was a mistake. Later on the list was corrected by the Panchayat. He also submits that even if respondent No.4 is to be removed from service, the select list would be valid only for one year which period has now expired and the petitioner would not be entitled to any appointment. This submission requires to be rejected out right. The eligibility criteria was to be satisfied on the date of interview/selection. The reply of respondent-State reproduced in extenso supra is clear and does not support the case of respondent No.4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions: 1. The appointment of respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside. 2. Respondents No.1 to 3 shall re-consider the entire case afresh to determine as to whether by virtue of Annexure:P5/G the appointment of respondent No.4 could be validated and whether such an order could be produced after he had been appointed on 1.7.2008. The respondents shall also determine as to under what circumstances the appointment order was issued to respondent No.4 without verification of his original documents. In case it is found that respondent No.4 does not satisfy the basic eligibility criteria or that his selection is in violation of the rules, it is but obvious that the petitioner herein shall be entitled to appointment and the fact that the waiting list has exhausted cannot be used against the petitioner. 3. In case it is found that respondent No.4 does not satisfy the basic eligibility criteria or that his selection is in violation of the rules, it is but obvious that the petitioner herein shall be entitled to appointment and the fact that the waiting list has exhausted cannot be used against the petitioner. 3. This order/judgment shall have no bearing on the departmental inquiry or in criminal proceedings which are contemplated/ have been taken/initiated against respondent No.4 which shall needless to say, be concluded expeditiously. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondents No. 1 to 3 not later than 31st December, 2010. No order as to costs. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and have also perused the records of the case. 6. The factum of a forged IRDP certificate having been submitted by the present appellant at the time of interview stands admitted in para 5 onwards of the reply filed to the writ petition by respondents No.1 to 3, which reply was filed on the affidavit of Director General of Police of Himachal Pradesh. Para 5 to 7 of the same are also being reproduced for ready reference: 5. That the contents of this para 5 are admitted to the extent that a news item datelined Rajgarh 23rd February 2010 appeared in Punjab Kesri wherein it was reported that one Shri Nitya Nand had made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur regarding selection of a candidate by producing forged IRDP certificate. It is humbly submitted that a complaint was made by Shri Nitya Nand to the replying respondent which was got enquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, through SHO Rajgarh. The enquiry revealed that the family of respondent No.6 was in BPL list w.e.f. 1998-99 to 18.2.2007. This family was deleted from B.P.L. list on 18.2.2007 by the resolution of Gram Panchayat. It was also revealed in the enquiry that the B.P.L. certificates are issued maximum for six months or the family crosses the poverty line. The photocopy received with complaint disclosed that there was interpolation in the dates of issuing the certificates. During enquiry the BDO stated that he had not signed the certificates as he was transferred from Rajgarh in the year 2006. 6. The photocopy received with complaint disclosed that there was interpolation in the dates of issuing the certificates. During enquiry the BDO stated that he had not signed the certificates as he was transferred from Rajgarh in the year 2006. 6. That the contents of this para call for no reply. It is, however, submitted that a complaint was also made by the petitioner to the respondent Department against selection of respondent No.4. 7. That in reply to this para it is reiterated that the complaint was got inquired into. It was revealed that the family of respondent No.4 and 5 had been deleted from B.P.L. list by gram Panchayat vide resolution dated 18.2.2007. However, respondent No.6 father of the respondent No.4 assailed the aforesaid resolution by submitted an appeal to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh vide order dated 15.10.2008 observed that the family of Shri Attar Singh respondent NO6 was actually living below the poverty line but the Panchayat Authority has wrongly passed the resolution dated 18.2.2007. Thus the Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed the resolution and ordered that the family of respondent No.6 be entertained in B.P.L. list till June, 2008 and thereafter the family will not be considered in BPL List. It is pertinent to submit here that the respondent No.4 appeared in ground test on 23.9.2007 and personality test on 17.6.2008 in Sirmaur district. It is further submitted that the photocopy of B.P.L. certificate produced by respondent No.4 reveals that it has over-writing/interpolation in the renewal date. The report was sent by the S.P. Sirmaur to Commandant 1st Bn for taking further action. However, the Commandant 1st Bn. Took up the matter with the Chairman Recruitment Board i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police Southern Range(now Inspector General of Police Southern Range Shimla) . The Inspector General of Police Southern Range has been asked to prove the matter with regard to appointment of Sanju vide letter dated 19.7.2010 and report has been asked within a fortnight. It is pertinent to submit that the respondent No.4 was asked by the Commandant 1st battalion under whom he is serving to appear before him and explain the position on 15.2.2010. He has submitted that original certificate of IRDP was not available with him as the same has been lost during the RTC. It is pertinent to submit that the respondent No.4 was asked by the Commandant 1st battalion under whom he is serving to appear before him and explain the position on 15.2.2010. He has submitted that original certificate of IRDP was not available with him as the same has been lost during the RTC. It is humbly submitted that the matter is being probed as to how the forged IRDP certificate produced by respondent No.4 was taken into consideration by the Recruitment Board. Action shall be taken as warranted under law. A copy of letter dated 19.7.2010 issued in this regard is appended as Annexure R-1. 7. In fact, it has been clearly mentioned in para 7 of the reply so filed to the writ petition that photocopy of B.P.L. certificate produced by present appellant revealed that there was overwriting/interpolation in the renewal date. It is also mentioned in the reply that the appellant was asked by the Commandant 1st Battalion to appear before him and explain the position on 15.2.2010 and when an inquiry stood ordered and the appellant was asked to produce original certificate, he stated that the same was lost during RTC. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate from the records that the averments so contained in the reply of respondent-State were incorrect. In our considered view, when it stood borne out from the records that the appellant was not in possession of a validly issued SC (IRDP) family certificate, as on the date when he appeared in the interview, we do not find any perversity with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, who has set aside the appointment which was gained by appellant on the basis of a tempered SC (IRDP) certificate. It is also a matter of record that neither as on the date when the interview took place, the appellant has produced original SC (IRDP) certificate nor thereafter any such certificate was produced during the course of inquiry. This thus demonstrates that the findings which had been returned against the present appellant by learned Single Judge are borne out from the records of the case and are not perverse. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. This thus demonstrates that the findings which had been returned against the present appellant by learned Single Judge are borne out from the records of the case and are not perverse. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. We uphold the findings returned by learned Single Judge that as on the date of interview, the family of the appellant did not belong to SC (IRDP) family and the appellant had gained said employment on the basis of a forged certificate. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.