Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2065 (RAJ)

Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-30

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT

body2019
JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, C.J. - We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant's grievance is that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate the facts and superficially accepted that the documents produced by the appellant for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, were forged and at the best suspect. 3. The brief facts are that in September, 1995 the State of Rajasthan by Advertisement No.1/1995, called for applications from individuals (who fulfilled the eligibility norms prescribed), for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III. 225 vacancies were notified; these included vacancies ear-marked for reserved category candidates. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/appellant was one among those candidates who answered the advertisement, participated in the selection process and was found successful. Subsequently, an appointment order was issued. The appellant joined the duties. 4. Acting upon a complaint that some candidates had in fact not undergone the B.Ed. course - (especially the petitioner/appellant had not undergone B.Ed. Course, and that the documents (produced in support of their degree course), were forged; the State conducted some enquiry and on the strength of the allegations, proceeded to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) with the Police Station Raipur, District Bhilwara. It later terminated the appellant's appointment by an order dated 29.08.1996. 5. The appellant challenged that order, on the ground that the degrees obtained by him were not forged. He relied upon a communication issued by the Deputy Secretary (Examination) of the Lucknow University dated 19.10.2001; he had also relied upon a similar letter dated 11.04.1996 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Examination) of the Lucknow University which mentioned that the degrees were valid. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court had taken note of the fact that an enquiry had been carried out. An order was made on 02.07.2002 pursuant to which enquiry report was placed on the record; the Court, however, found there to be a lacuna. Taking note of these facts, on 23.08.2004 the Court issued notice to the Panchayati Raj Department, for the lapses. The subsequent orders led to an enquiry by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court; he furnished a report on 22.08.2005. The Deputy Registrar's enquiry, after considering the documentary evidence and other material, was unequivocal that the degree certificates and other documents produced by the appellant were forged. The subsequent orders led to an enquiry by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court; he furnished a report on 22.08.2005. The Deputy Registrar's enquiry, after considering the documentary evidence and other material, was unequivocal that the degree certificates and other documents produced by the appellant were forged. After the report was furnished to the appellant, he made submissions objecting to it. The learned Single Judge, on an overall consideration of the circumstances, held that there was no illegality in the termination of the petitioner/appellant's appointment. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the subsequent letter of 19.10.2001, as well as juxtaposition that the marksheet and the degree certificate produced before the Court clearly showed that the allegations of forgery, were untenable. It is more importantly urged that the list produced and relied upon by the State contains names of the candidates who, like the petitioner, were appointed, but against whom no action of termination of appointment was resorted to. Learned counsel submitted that these facts show that the petitioner/appellant was subjected to discriminatory treatment. Reliance has been placed upon letter dated 19.10.2001 to show that the individual at serial No.8 Modu Ram continues to work. 8. This Court notices at the outset that the present appeal is highly belated, it has been preferred after a delay of over 900 days, after the time granted for preferring an appeal had lapsed. There is hardly any explanation given by the appellant for the delay. This by itself is sufficient to dismiss the appeal. However, the Court proposes to deal with the merits of the case. 9. The appellant relied upon three documents to substantiate his argument that the degree, certificate, marksheets etc. produced were genuine and that he had in fact undergone the course. One of these is dated 19.10.2001 - it is said to be issued by the Lucknow University. Interestingly, the letter is addressed to the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Such a document, however, is untraceable from the record of this Court. Even more surprisingly, no copies are marked to any one - naturally not even the petitioner/appellant; yet he has produced it. 10. Having regard to these facts, under what circumstances the appellant could have got hold of a copy of the so-called letter is inexplicable. Such a document, however, is untraceable from the record of this Court. Even more surprisingly, no copies are marked to any one - naturally not even the petitioner/appellant; yet he has produced it. 10. Having regard to these facts, under what circumstances the appellant could have got hold of a copy of the so-called letter is inexplicable. During the hearing an attempt was made by the appellant's counsel to say that the letter was secured under an R.T.I. application. Counsel relied upon orders made during the course of the proceedings in 2002 and 2004 to say that the Lucknow University was required to inform the Court about the genuineness of the appellant's claim. In the opinion of this Court, the explanation cannot be accepted. The letter of 19.10.2001 does not advert to any order of the Court or enquiry order. The enquiry in fact finds mention in the order subsequently made in 2002 - and the enquiry ordered by the Court in 2004. Furthermore, the Right to Information Act was enacted in the year 2005 and therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to secure this letter prior to enactment of that Act. 11. As far as the arguments of the appellant that those like him have been allowed to continue are concerned, the Court holds the submission to be devoid of merit. It is well established that there is no right to negative equity i.e. illegality committed by the public authority to one kind of persons cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That apart, the mere fact that the name of one candidate who continues to be in service, is found in a suspect letter, per se does not mean anything. In the absence of any allegations against such individual, that he had indulged forgery or supplied false information, the State could not legitimately proceed to cancel his appointment. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the appeal lacks merit, which is accordingly dismissed.