Abhishek Kumar, vs State of Jharkhand

In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents to accept the joining on the post of 'Constable' by quashing the

order of cancellation of appointment dated 20.08.2007.

The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that in pursuance to advertisement, in daily newspaper being Advertisement No.1/04 for

appointment of 'Constable' in different districts including Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Chatra, the selection process of the above 4 districts was

cancelled by the competent authority due to illegalities and malpractices. All the successful candidates including the petitioner of the said districts

appeared for fresh physical and written test. The petitioner appeared in the second selection process and having qualified was declared successful. It

has been submitted that some of the candidates being unsuccessful, approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006. However, the petitioner

submitted representation before the respondents but the respondents cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the ground that there is manipulation in

the master-chart. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ application in W.P.(S) No.5906 of 2007 with W.P.(S) No.6041 of 2007, which were

disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2008 with direction to the respondents if they intend to take any action against the petitioner, on any just and

reasonable grounds for cancelling their candidature, they are at liberty to do so only after complying with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter,

the petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority to accept the joining of the petitioner. Since, no order has been passed by the

respondents, the petitioner left with on other alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

redressal of his grievance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondent in denying the petitioner's joining on the post of

'Constable' amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ground stated in the counter-affidavit

that the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled due to interpolation in the master chart has already been negatived by this Court vide order

dated 03.09.2008 in W.P.(S) No.5906 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner does not come under the category

of 932 candidates who are beneficiary of malpractice therefore, the candidature of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents on

the post of 'Constable'.

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 08.11.2017 has been filed. In the supplementary

counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that vide letter dated 25.02.2009 which has been communicated to the petitioner that the selection of the

petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that there has been manipulation in the master-chart (Annexure-B to the said affidavit).

Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the supplementary counter-affidavit has submitted that since the

petitioner has resorted to malpractice and there has been interpolation in the master chart, the petitioner cannot take benefit of such interpolation

therefore, the respondents have rightly cancelled the selection of the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not

been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons:

(I) Admittedly, the selection of the petitioner for the post of Constable has been cancelled because of manipulation in the master chart as is being

evident from Annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit.Â

(II) It is a settled principles of law that inclusion of name in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to appointed 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) 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 has at paragraph no. 13 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 v. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. 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.â€​

(IV) Apart from the aforesaid facts, the selection to the post of 'Constable' in pursuance to Advertisement No.1/2004 has attained its finality in the

meantime, more than one decade has elapsed.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no illegality and irregularity on the part of the respondents in

cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the post of 'Constable'.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.