Lekhram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3, whereby the appointment order dated 07.01.2013 of the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard has been cancelled on the ground of not fulfilling educational criteria.

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the Respondent No. 2 had issued an advertisement (Annexure P/2) for recruitment to the post of Forest Guard and Driver through direct recruitment for various Forest Division of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria applied for the post of Forest Guard along with all testimonial documents (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the office of Respondent No. 3 issued a call letter (Annexure P/4) to petitioner for physical test to be held on 08.12.2012. The petitioner appeared in physical test and declared passed, thereafter the petitioner was called for interview on 12.12.2012 (Annexure P/5). After due process of law and prescribed qualification in advertisement, on the recommendation of the selection committee, the Respondent No. 3 issued appointment letter (Annexure P/6) in favour of petitioner. Thereafter, on 10.01.2013, the petitioner gave his joining (Annexure P/7) on the said post in the office of Respondent No. 3. and on 15.01.2013 Respondent No.3 issued posting order (Annexure P/8) in favour of petitioner at Range flying squad at Raipur. Again on 28.01.2013, an amended posting order has been issued, whereby the petitioner has been posted at Barnawapara Range Forest Division Raipur and the petitioner joined on his respective place at Barnawapara. According to the petitioner, during his working period, impugned order dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P/1) has been issued, whereby the petitioner’s appointment order dated 07.01.2013 has been cancelled citing the reason that the petitioner has given wrong information regarding his educational qualification and not having required percentage of minimum qualification. Hence, this petition seeking following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records, pertaining to case of petitioner.

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued writ/writs and set-aside the order impugned dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P/ 1) passed by the Respondent No.3.

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and just.

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, all of a sudden, without any show cause notice and without following the principles of natural justice, passed the impugned order dated 01.06.2013 cancelling the appointment of petitioner on the ground that  the petitioner is not having prescribed percentage of minimum qualification, whereas according to the advertisement, the minimum qualification for Forest Guard is only Higher Secondary Certificate (10+2) passed from recognized board and no minimum percentage has been prescribed for the post. Even petitioner is having 55.2% marks in higher secondary examination, therefore, after due process of law, on recommendation of authorized selection committee, petitioner has been appointment on the post of Forest Guard. As such, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 has no leg to stand. The petitioner has been working on the post for last 10 years, attended different training programmes, conferred with certificate for his excellent work and has unblemished record, therefore, termination of the petitioner without affording proper opportunity of hearing is bad in law. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order has been passed without approval of the competent selection committee. Furthermore, no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner to put his stand which is complete violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has successfully passed in all tests conducted by selection committee, thereafter he has been selected/appointed on merit on the post of Forest Guard. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P/1) may be set aside and the petitioner be re-instated in the service.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dipti Prakash Banjaree V. Satyendra Nath Bose National Center for Basic Science reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60, V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239, Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central university of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC 426, Indra Pal Gupta Vs. Managing Committee, Model Inter College reported in (1984) 3 SCC 384, State of Haryana and another Vs. Jagdish Chander reported in (1995) 2 SCC 567, Sivanandan C.T. Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994, order dated 07.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No.4016/2023 & W.P.(S) No.3986/2023.

On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that after issuance of the Advertisement (Annexure P/2) for 84 posts of Forest Guard in Raipur Forest Division, out of which 2 posts were reserved for OBC Male category and total 34,487 applications were received for all the 84 posts. Since voluminous applications were received for 84 posts, therefore, the Department, in its wisdom, has adopted a prescribed procedure (Annexure R/1) as per the directions of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Clause No. 1 prescribes the proforma in which the applications are to be received, Clause No. 2 denotes the selection committee, whereas Clause No. 3 states that for physical measurement and physical efficiency test and for keeping records of measurements, the President of the Selection Committee would be entitled to constitute sub committees. Further, Clause No. 4 describes procedure for enquiring into the applications received. Since huge number of applications approximately 34478 were received, therefore, the candidates in the ratio of 1:10 were called on the basis of merit, thereafter, were called for physical measurement and physical efficiency test, in the second stage of selection process, after receiving of the applications. For the post and category for which the petitioner had applied for, the cut off marks to make a candidate of OBC category eligible for coming into the merit list in 1:10 ratios was 75.4 percentage of marks obtained in higher secondary examination / 12th class.

Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner at the time of submitting copy of the application form (Annexure R/2), stated that he obtained 81.82 percentage of marks in Higher Secondary/12th in the year 1996 in the examination conducted by the Bhopal Board. On the said basis of submission in writing given by the petitioner, his percentage i.e. 81.82 was taken into consideration and he was sent for physical measurement and physical eligibility test and thereafter was selected and given posting too. Learned State counsel also submits that Clause No.3 clearly provides that upon finding self verified educational and other certificates to be found false, the services of the incumbent would be dispensed with and a criminal case would also be registered against such an erring person and as per Clause No. 4 of the appointment order, the appointment would be temporary in nature and only upon satisfactory completion of probation period, the appointment would be made permanent. There is a declaration by the petitioner that in the event of any information furnished found to be false, the application would be liable for being rejected without any notice. Learned counsel also submits that at the time of scrutiny of application submitted by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner deliberately misquoted /over-quoted his marks in higher secondary/12th to be 81.82 percentage, that too by overwriting and by use of whitener, whereas from a bare perusal of class 12th certificate (Annexure R/3) of the petitioner, it is evident that in theory examination, out of full marks of 550, the petitioner obtained 208 marks, whereas in practical out of full marks of 450, the petitioner obtained 344 marks and therefore, out of full mark of 1000, the petitioner obtained only 532 marks, which comes to around 55.2 percentage, but, the petitioner by misquoting and manipulation in his original application (Annexure R/2), stated that he has obtained 81.82 marks in class 12/ Higher Secondary examination. Therefore, taking the verification of the petitioner to be true and relying upon the marks quoted by the petitioner, petitioner came above the cut of marks i.e. 75.4 and was placed in the merit list, sent for physical measurement and physical eligibility test & after passing the same, petitioner was given appointment and subsequent posting.

Learned State counsel also submits that during the course of scrutiny, when these anomalies, manipulations and misrepresentations of actual facts came to the notice of the authorities, the order (Annexure P/1) was passed. Learned State counsel also submits that the facts are admitted, therefore, providing of opportunity of hearing remains an empty formality. In the instant case, due to willful misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, the appointment was given to the petitioner, who in-fact had obtained 55.2 percentage of marks and therefore, the appointment given to the petitioner was not at all sustainable. Thus, the instant petition has no merit and may be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 07.01.2023 vide Annexure P/6 and by order dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P/1), the same was cancelled by Respondent No.3.

Placing reliance on the order dated 13.07.2023 of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 3986/2023 and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Vijayakumaran (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before cancelling the appointment order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P/6), no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and, as such, the impugned order has no leg to stand.

It is apparent from the impugned order (Annexure P/1) that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in the light of Clause No.3 of the appointment order dated 07.01.2013, which provides that in the event of educational and other certificates submitted by the petitioner found to be fake during verification, the services of the petitioner will be terminated and a criminal case can be registered.

According to the learned State counsel, the petitioner was invited/called for interview and physical test on the basis of his marks/percentage of 12th class and upon scrutiny of documents, it came to fore that the petitioner has misquoted/over-quoted his marks, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled in light of Clause No.3 of the appointment order.

This Court in W.P.(S) No.3986/2023 (supra) observed in para 17 and 18 as under :-

“17. Admittedly, in the instant case no such opportunity has ever been granted to the petitioners. Another fact, which needs to be considered is that the respondents in the reply have relied upon a correspondence made by the Additional Secretary dated 02.03.2023. However the pleadings of the contents of the said correspondence also would show that the Additional Secretary also had only directed the respondents to take appropriate steps for the termination of service of those who have been illegally appointed. The Additional Secretary at no point of time directed the respondent No.6 to straight away issue termination orders without even conducting the preliminary enquiry if required and without even the issuance of a show cause notice.

Under the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the action on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 by the respondent No.6 is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The same is thus unsustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set-aside/quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.6 dated 03.03.2023 in all the writ petitions stands set- aside/quashed with consequences to follow. Since the impugned order is being set aside on the technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the respondents would be at liberty if they so want to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and also adhering to the principles of natural justice.”

In the instant case also, perusal of the documents would reveal that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 01.07.2013, he joined his services on 10.01.2013 and the appointment order of the petitioner has been cancelled vide Annexure P/1 without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. whereby the termination order held to be illegal being ex facie stigmatic which was issued without subjecting the appellant to formal enquiry and in the light of observation made by this Court in W.P.(S) No.3986/2023, the impugned order dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P/1) is quashed/set aside, with consequences to follow, on the technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents would be at liberty if they so want to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and also adhering to the principles of natural justice.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands allowed and disposed of