Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 893 (MAD)

. v. .

2019-04-02

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This matter came up for hearing today [02.04.2019] under the caption ‘For Being Mentioned’ at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a complaint that the expert opinion filed before this Court by the Additional Advocate General is a bogus one and on verification, the writ petitioner came to understand that no such Professor in the name of Dr.D.Moorthy is working nor was working in the Department of Mathematics in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Taking serious note of the complaint made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after disposal of the writ petition, this Court directed the learned Additional Advocate General to verify and file an affidavit. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General made a submission on 01.04.2019 that the offence of impersonation was committed by one Mr.G.V.Kumar, who was a Psychologist and assisted the respondent Board to secure the expert opinion. This Court directed the Inspector General of Police, who was present on 01.04.2019 to file a detailed affidavit regarding the facts and circumstances. When the matter is listed today, the Inspector General of Police and Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai filed an affidavit on behalf of the Chairman. 4. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that, Mr.D.Moorthy who offered the expert opinion was serving as a trained Graduate Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya and retired form service during the year 2013. One Mr.G.V.Kumar @ G.Vijayakumar a consultant, Pyschologist who was associated for preparing psychology questions for the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board had introduced one Mr.D.Moorthy to Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board as Professor of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, who had furnished the expert opinion to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board purported to be and signed as Professor, IIT, Madras. 5. During the enquiry, it was revealed that both Mr.G.V.kumar and Mr.D.Moorthy had conspired to give a false identity of Mr.D.Moorthy who had posed as Professor of IIT, Madras, and disclosed his qualification as Ph.D. with the intention to cheat Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board for monetary claim and publicity. 6. 5. During the enquiry, it was revealed that both Mr.G.V.kumar and Mr.D.Moorthy had conspired to give a false identity of Mr.D.Moorthy who had posed as Professor of IIT, Madras, and disclosed his qualification as Ph.D. with the intention to cheat Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board for monetary claim and publicity. 6. In this regard, the respondent Board registered a criminal case in CCB Cr.No.117 of 2019 under Section 465,468,471,419,420 r/w 120(b) IPC against both Mr.G.V.Kumar and Mr.D.Moorthy who had committed forgery with the intention to cheat the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board. 7. The affidavit further reads that, due to the association with Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board in the past Mr.G.V.kumar designated as consultant psychologist was approached by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board for question setting on psychology for the recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print 2018). His testimonials were also verified through websites. In paragraph No.22 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that, since the system of preparing question paper and seeking expert opinion is kept strictly confidential, the contention of Mr.D.Moorthy as Professor of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras was accepted without causing verification based on the testimony given by Mr.G.V.Kumar, Psychology test consultant, who had been associated with Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board since 2011. 8. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board has obtained expert opinion from Mr.D.Moorthy without verifying his correct designation in pursuance of keeping absolute confidentiality and as per the recommendation of Mr.G.V.Kumar who was associated with Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board. 9. In paragraph No.24 of the affidavit, it is stated that with regard to the question in dispute, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board addressed a letter to Registrar, IIT Madras to ascertain the correct answer and accordingly in the reply furnished it has been stated that, “the question do not contain sufficient information towards getting meaningful solution and so the correct answer could not be found out”. 10. In paragraph No.25 of the affidavit, it is stated that as per the reply received from the Registrar, IIT, Madras, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board resolved to award 1/2 mark to the question in dispute to all candidates who had attended the written examination. Accordingly the petitioner Mr.Arunachalam and 8 other candidates becomes eligible to be selected provisionally as per the revised merit. 11. Accordingly the petitioner Mr.Arunachalam and 8 other candidates becomes eligible to be selected provisionally as per the revised merit. 11. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board is in the process of including the 9 candidates detailed in the provisional selection list and the same will be forwarded to the office of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu for causing police verification and Medical Examination and issuance of appointment order subject to their clearance in the police verification and medical examination. 12. Though in the affidavit it is stated that, the respondent Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board had not intentionally submitted the expert opinion furnished by Mr.D.Moorthy before this Court, the said Mr.D.Moorthy, who was impersonated as Professor, Department of Mathematics, IIT, Madras. 13. During course of hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned counsel Mr.Anil Relwani, intervened and filed an affidavit filed by Mr.D.Moorthy. The affidavit of Mr.D.Moorthy states as follows, “1 humbly state that I am the Deponent herein and as such I am aware of the contents of this Affidavit and as such I am competent to file this Affidavit. 2. I humbly state that I was teaching maths at Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT., Chennai and retired from service on 28.02.2013. 3. 1 humbly state that while so, on 28 02.2013 Dr. GV Kumar sought my help to solve a mathematical problem. Dr. GV Kumar was my visiting faculty for psychology at ICE, University of Madras. I did solve the mathematical problem on a rough paper sheet and sent the same to him through Watsapp. Thereafter, Dr. GV Kumar requested me to visit the office of the Inspector General of Police at Egmore on 01.03.2019 and directed me to meet Mrs.N.Lalitha PA to Inspector General of Police. Further, she once again requested me to solve the mathematical problem and 1 solved the problem on an A4 sheet. Thereafter, one office staff at Inspector General Office got the same typed in an A4 Sheet and the 2nd page contained my name. Thereafter, I was requested to append my signature on top of my name, I asked them the purpose and reason, they informed me that since I was a retired mathematics teacher at Kendriya Vidyalya, IIT, Chennai and the office of Inspector General of Police wanted a mathematics teacher to solve the problem, 4. Thereafter, I was requested to append my signature on top of my name, I asked them the purpose and reason, they informed me that since I was a retired mathematics teacher at Kendriya Vidyalya, IIT, Chennai and the office of Inspector General of Police wanted a mathematics teacher to solve the problem, 4. I humbly state that I reiterate that to the best of my knowledge, 2nd page of A4 sheet contained my name only without any designation when I appended my signature. 5. I humbly state that contents of my affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing untrue has been stated nor any facts have been concealed” 14. The learned counsel for Mr.D.Moorthy states that, he did not know about the pendency of the writ petition nor an information was provided to him stating that his opinion is going to be submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Contrarily, the learned counsel states that Mr.G.V.Kumar was his Professor in Madras University, who called him over phone and requested Mr.D.Moorthy to solve the Mathematics problem. He solved the problem and send it through Whats App to Mr.G.V.Kumar. Thereafter, Mr.G.V.Kumar requested Mr.D.Moorthy to come over to the office of Inspector General of Police, wherein, Mr.D.Moorthy met one Smt.Lalitha, who is the Personal Assistant to Inspector General of Police. The said Personal Assistant to Inspector General of Police requested Mr.D.Moorthy to solve the problem in A4 size paper and he solved the problem in same way as he had done earlier and send it to Mr.G.V.Kumar through Whats App. In the A4 size paper, Mr.D.Moorthy signed the opinion. Further, the learned counsel for Mr.D.Moorthy states that at the time of signing, his designation was not at all mentioned in the A4 paper and subsequently the said designation “Professor, Department of Mathematics, IIT Madras” had been inserted in the office of the Inspector General of Police. 15. Thus, the learned counsel for Mr.D.Moorthy plead ignorance of the mentioning of his designation erroneously in the A4 size paper wherein, Mr.D.Moorthy solved the mathematics problem as requested by his own Professor Mr.G.V.Kumar, and in the presence of Personal Assistant to Inspector General of Police. 16. At the outset, it is stated that Mr.D.Moorthy was unaware of the fact that, for what purpose he was requested to solve the mathematics problem. 16. At the outset, it is stated that Mr.D.Moorthy was unaware of the fact that, for what purpose he was requested to solve the mathematics problem. Further, he was not aware of the fact that the problem solved by him is going to be submitted before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. This apart, he had not received any official letter from the respondents for offering an expert opinion with regard to the disputed question. Under these circumstances, it is contended that Mr.D.Moorthy is noway connected with any of the offences and he did not know about the case at all. At the request of his former Professor Mr.G.V.Kumar, he solved the problem and, at his request he went to the Office of Inspector General of Police and signed the A4 paper wherein, the problem solved by him was typed. 17. The learned Additional Advocate General states that the statement now given by Mr.D.Moorthy is also incorrect and Mr.G.V.kumar psychologist, who was associated with the Board obtained expert opinion from Mr.D.Moorthy and that was submitted before this Court. 18. This Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition No.5542 of 2019, made an observation that High Court being not an expert body, cannot solve the mathematic issue and it is for the respondents to provide the key answers in respect of the disputed question. At that point of time, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent made a submission that the respondents would submit a expert opinion from a Professor of the IIT, Chennai. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner emphatically contended that the answer provided by the writ petitioner was the correct one and the writ petitioner also verified with the qualified mathematics Professors. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court directed the respondent to submit an expert opinion from a Professor serving in IIT, Chennai. 19. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that on 04.03.2019. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted the expert opinion to the Court and the Court received it and again the matter was listed for further hearing on 11.03.2019. The matter was not taken up on 11.03.2019 and on 12.03.2019 and subsequently the matter was taken up by this Court on 13.03.2019. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted the expert opinion to the Court and the Court received it and again the matter was listed for further hearing on 11.03.2019. The matter was not taken up on 11.03.2019 and on 12.03.2019 and subsequently the matter was taken up by this Court on 13.03.2019. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared on that date relying on the expert opinion contended that, the answer written by the writ petitioner was wrong as per the expert opinion and therefore, the decision of the respondent Board is correct and the writ petition is to be dismissed. Relying on the expert opinion submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, which was signed by Mr.D.Moorthy, Professor, Department of Mathematics, IIT, Madras. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 13.03.2019 by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of UPPSC Through its Chairman and Another Vs.Rahul Singh Another. 20. In the affidavit filed today on 02.04.2019, by the Inspector General of Police and Member Secretary, the status of Mr.G.V.Kumar in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, is not explained. Whether he is a regular official of the Board or the Government, nothing has been stated. Even it is not stated whether Mr.G.V.Kumar is appointed as a recognized Consultant by the Government or by the respondent Board. Contrarily, it is stated that Mr.G.V.Kumar designated Consultant is being consulted by the respondent Board for several years. The sanctity of such consultation or engagement or appointment has not been explained in the affidavit. 21. It is not stated in the affidavit, whether the respondent Board had written an official letter to the Registrar, IIT, Madras seeking an expert opinion from the qualified Professor serving in the Department of Maths, IIT Madras, in order to solve the disputed question. In the absence of any such official letter from the respondent and a reply from IIT Madras, the very sanctity of the expert opinion filed by the respondent before this Court is of doubtful nature. Under what Authority Mr.G.V.Kumar is engaged as a consultant with the respondent Board for several years and, what are all the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by him or the opinions offered by him to the respondent Board are also not explained. 22. Under what Authority Mr.G.V.Kumar is engaged as a consultant with the respondent Board for several years and, what are all the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by him or the opinions offered by him to the respondent Board are also not explained. 22. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police that Mr.D.Moorthy has offered opinion for monetary claim. However, it is not explained the quantum of monetary claim made and paid by the respondent to Mr.D.Moorthy or to Mr.G.V.Kumar and the date on which the payment was made officially. In the absence of any such details, the credibility of the engagement of Mr.G.V.Kumar, who in turn obtained an opinion from Mr.D.Moorthy can never be trusted upon. 23. None of these details are provided in the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police. It is further not stated, who is the Authority requested or directed Mr.G.V.Kumar to obtain the expert opinion from the IIT, Madras. Whether such an Authority has issued direction or made a request in writing or not. The expert opinion submitted on before this Court, said to have been signed by Mr.D.Moorthy is not properly filed with the seal of Mr.D.Moorthy/Contrarily, the designation of Mr.D.Moorthy has been typed in the expert opinion as “Professor, Department of Maths, IIT, Madras”. The way in which it is typed itself cannot be trusted upon. 24. The practice in prevalence by the Authorities are that at the time of setting the question papers to examinations, the Professor or qualified Authority at the time of setting the question papers, are bound to provide the key answers also to the recruiting agency. The key answers submitted by the question paper setter has also not been placed before this Court nor the details are provided in the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police. Peculiarly, even the key answer which was referred at the time of evaluation of the answer sheets of all the candidates is also not stated in the affidavit. 25. Subsequently, after the complaint made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner before this Court, the respondent urgently approached the Registrar, IIT Madras, who offered the opinion stating that, the disputed question did not contains sufficient information, particulars to get meaningful solution and so correct answer could not be find out. 25. Subsequently, after the complaint made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner before this Court, the respondent urgently approached the Registrar, IIT Madras, who offered the opinion stating that, the disputed question did not contains sufficient information, particulars to get meaningful solution and so correct answer could not be find out. If such is the opinion now offered by the IIT Madras, what about the candidates who all are similarly placed to that of the writ petitioner and the number of persons appeared in the selection process. These all are the larger issues and if any such large scale irregularities or illegalities, the same is also to be considered and no such particulars or facts are enumerated in the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police. The facts and circumstances now placed before this Court reveals that the respondent had undoubtedly, not acted in consonance with the official procedures for obtaining expert opinion. 26. The expert opinion submitted before this Court cannot be trusted upon. The respondents had not taken care even to find out the authenticity of the expert opinion. It is further possible that knowingly or intentionally, such expert opinion was obtained and submitted before this Court for the purpose of deciding the writ petition in their favour. However, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that, the respondents had not only misguided the Hon’ble High Court, but also filed a bogus expert opinion resulted dismissal of the writ petition. Thus, the act of the respondents are to be construed as an obstruction caused for administration of Justice and consequently, resulted in miscarriage of Justice. 27. It is unfortunate to state that, such a bogus expert opinion obtained by way of impersonation is knowingly filed by the respondent recruiting Board. Therefore, the officials of the respondent Board are certainly responsible and accountable for the act of submission of such an unauthenticated document before the Hon’ble High Court for the purpose of adjudication of the issues and for delivery of Justice. Undoubtedly, the actions of the respondent resulted in denial of Justice to the litigant, who approached this Court for redressel. The writ petition itself was dismissed based on the expert opinion filed before this Court by the respondents. Undoubtedly, the actions of the respondent resulted in denial of Justice to the litigant, who approached this Court for redressel. The writ petition itself was dismissed based on the expert opinion filed before this Court by the respondents. When the learned counsel for the writ petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that, the expert opinion submitted is a bogus one, then this Court is of the considered opinion that, the respondent had not only interfered with the administration of Justice, their act resulted in miscarriage of Justice and accordingly, this Court has inclined to initiate the Suo moto Contempt proceedings against the Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, by invoking the power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 28. Accordingly, the Registry, High Court of Madras is directed to number the Suo moto Contempt Petition initiated against the respondent and issue notice in accordance with the procedures contemplated. 29. Registry is directed to list the matter for further hearing on 05.04.2019. Post the matter on 05.04.2019.