Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 405 (UTT)

Usha Rani v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-13

RAVI MALIMATH, RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Since, the controversy of law in these special appeals is same, therefore, these special appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants challenged the order dated 15.12.2018 by which the candidature of the appellants for the post of Assistant Book Binder in Government LITHO press, Roorkee, Haridwar have been rejected. Challenge is also made to the inquiry report dated 19.04.2018, by which, the appellants were found ineligible to the post. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In response to an advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, the appellants applied to the post of Assistant Book Binder. They appeared in the examination and were declared successful, but, subsequently, their candidature was rejected for the reasons that they could not produce the documents pertaining to their eligibility. All the three appellants filed separate writ petitions in this Court, which were disposed of with the liberty to the appellants to make a representation. The appellants made representations, which were considered and their appointments were recommended. The department had earlier constituted Inquiry Committee with regard to other candidates, who were found successful, therefore, in the case of appellants also, a Five Member Committee was constituted. The Committee verified the experience certificates submitted by the appellants and concluded that the experience certificates were not reliable and they are not eligible to the post, for which they applied. 5. Based on the inquiry report, the candidature of the appellants were again rejected. The appellants approached this Court once again. Their petitions have been dismissed by an order dated 09.09.2020, which is impugned herein. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the experience certificates submitted by the appellants were genuine and their employers had given affidavits also, but, the Inquiry Committee travelled beyond the scope to conclude that the experience certificates submitted by the appellants are not genuine. 7. It is argued that, in fact, respondent no.3 was a member of the Inquiry Committee, but, he himself finally rejected the candidature of the appellants and before doing so, they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing. 8. While dismissing the petition, it was observed that the Committee was validly constituted to inquire into the matter and the Committee reported that no work was done by the appellants and they procured experience certificates without any work having been done. 8. While dismissing the petition, it was observed that the Committee was validly constituted to inquire into the matter and the Committee reported that no work was done by the appellants and they procured experience certificates without any work having been done. No arbitrariness was found in the decision rejecting the candidature of the appellants. 9. The inquiry report has been filed by the appellants, which reveals that, in fact, initially, the appellant did not mention, in their application form, against the column of experience, that they had any experience. After having declared successful in written examination, they submitted the experience certificates. 10. It is not in dispute that experience as an apprentice for one year or two years practical experience in any renowned firm in offset printing machine was also eligibility criteria for the post. 11. The inquiry report is in detail. According to the appellant Smt. Usha Rani, she had worked in Durga Printing Press, Dehradun, but, it was found that there were no binding machines. The area was less for binding work and in fact, the electricity connection was not to the strength, which may run the binding/printing machines; there were no records of the workers about their attendance, salary, etc. There are other observations also in that inquiry report. Similar observations were recorded with regard to the appellants Dilshad Ahmed and Ravinder Saini's experience certificates. 12. Undoubtedly, it was within the domain of the department to verify the authenticity of the certificates submitted by the candidates and this is what was done in the case of the appellants. 13. The department did not act solely on the affidavits given by the employers. Had the department done so, an obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellants would have arisen. In the instant case the committee, on its own, verified the experience certificates. Thus there was no occasion to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 14. In the instant case, as stated, at the first instance, the appellants did not mention in the application form about their experience and subsequently, they submitted their experience certificates, which on scrutiny and examination, were found false. 15. Therefore, having considered the submissions, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in these special appeals. The writ petitions have rightly been dismissed. Accordingly, these special appeals deserve to be dismissed. 16. 15. Therefore, having considered the submissions, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in these special appeals. The writ petitions have rightly been dismissed. Accordingly, these special appeals deserve to be dismissed. 16. All these special appeals are dismissed.