Mukesh Kumar and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—This shall dispose of a bunch of petitions, filed in challenge to similar orders, viz. CWP Nos. 16606 of 2009, `Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16605 of 2009, `Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16590 of 2009, `Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16748 of 2009, `Gurjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16749 of 2009, `Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16750 of 2009, `Navtej Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16751 of 2009, `Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16752 of 2009, `Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16753 of 2009, `Harpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16754 of 2009, `Gurpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16755 of 2009, `Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16756 of 2009, `Anu Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16757 of 2009, `Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16760 of 2009, `Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16765 of 2009, `Rajni v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16766 of 2009, `Sukhpal Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16767 of 2009, `Gurbinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16776 of 2009, `Pooja Rani v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16789 of 2009, `Hardeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16793 of 2009, `Gurbhej Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16794 of 2009, `Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16796 of 2009, `Jatinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16800 of 2009, `Ranjit Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16801 of 2009, `Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16802 of 2009, `Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16804 of 2009, `Shashi Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16807 of 2009, `Poonam Bala Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16812 of 2009, `Baljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16813 of 2009, `Renu Bala v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16840 of 2009, `Archana Rani v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16842 of 2009, `Jaswant Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16844 of 2009, `Khushvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16849 of 2009, `Rupinder Kaur Gill v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; 16854 of 2009, `Mahinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.''; and 16616 of 2009, `Ramandeep Kaur Cheema v. State of Punjab and Ors.''.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners agree that similar issue was raised in Civil Writ Petition No. 16683 of 2009, `Rashpinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.'', decided on 3.11.2009.

I have considered the contention of learned Counsel. I find that the similar orders as challenged in the case of Rashpinder Kaur (supra) have been challenged in this petition.

In the case of Rashpinder Kaur (supra), the following order had been passed:

Facts in brief are that by virtue of an advertisement issued by the State of Punjab, Department of Education, 9998 posts of Teaching Fellows were advertised. In about 400 cases, the respondents prima faice found that the experience certificate(s)/documents appended with the Application Forms was/were bogus (forged and fabricated). So as to give an opportunity to such persons, an advertisement was given by the respondents to enable all such persons to appear before a Committee to establish that the certificate(s) infact was/were genuine.

In all the cases that have flooded the Court, the respondents have passed orders cancelling the agreement of appointment, thereby removing the persons from service with immediate effect. While passing the orders, reference has been made only to the certificate(s) that purportedly was/were found to be forged/ fabricated.

The writ petitions have been filed in challenge to the orders of removal on various grounds including that the petitioners have been allowed to serve for about a year where after the impugned action has been taken; the certificate(s) that had been termed as bogus (forged and fabricated) was/ were infact genuine as is evident from the documents appended with the writ petitions.

It has been specifically pleaded that the documents placed on record with the writ petitions in support of genuineness of the certificate(s), were produced before the Committee. No notice of the documents has however been taken by the administrative authorities; every individual is vested with a right on issuance of a letter of appointment; the orders passed by the respondents are cyclostyled orders and do not deal with the individual case of the petitioners, as projected by them; reasoned and speaking orders have not been passed; and proper opportunity of hearing has not been given.

In the petitions earlier filed on the grounds given above, the matters had been adjourned to 10.11.2009 after issuance of notice of motion.

The matters that are being taken up today, have been shown in urgent list and are being disposed of in view of the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent- State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the respondents, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, have taken a decision to review/ reconsider the cases of all the persons who want to bring evidence/ material to show that the documents/ certificates submitted by the petitioners were genuine. In pursuance of this exercise, an advertisement has already been given in `The Tribune. and "Punjab Kesri. on 30.10.2009 and Punjabi daily `Ajit. dated 31.10.2009. The public notice makes it evident that all the persons who have been removed from service on the ground of relying on bogus (forged and fabricated) certificates, belonging to the areas (except District Gurdaspur) are required to appear in the Office of Bharat Scouts Guide, Near Law Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh at 10.00 A.M. The persons from District Gurdaspur are required to appear on 5.11.2009.

Learned Counsel has further informed the Court that a Committee has been constituted which shall accept the representations/ documents to be submitted in support of claim of each person. While accepting the documents, a receipt duly signed by authorised signatory would be given for each of the documents. On considering claim of each person, after verification of the documents so submitted, a reasoned and speaking order would be passed.

Learned Counsel further states that on account of paucity of time, another public notice would be given by way of a corrigendum or otherwise, asking the removed persons to come present and project their case as detailed above.

Learned Counsel has assured the Court that speaking and reasoned orders would be passed in regard to each of the individual cases and the same shall be conveyed to the concerned persons.

In view of the stand taken on behalf of the respondent-State, it transpires that the impugned orders are required to be reviewed/ reconsidered by the respondents. Under the circumstances, cause of action does not survive in so much as fresh decision vide reasoned and speaking orders, would be taken by the respondents after considering the individual claim of the petitioners/ candidates.

In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to complete the process as soon as possible, in the interest of administrative efficiency.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that some such persons have not been relieved and continue to serve.

If that be so, it is directed that the persons not relieved till date as a consequence of the orders of removal, would be allowed to continue to serve till orders are passed by the respondents on review/ reconsideration of the claims.

On consideration of facts collectively, it transpires that persons from areas other than District Gurdaspur, would be given an opportunity of presenting their case on 4th November, 2009 at 10.00 AM in the Office of Bharat Scouts Guide, near Law Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, while the persons from District Gurdaspur can approach the Committee on 5th November, 2009. Another corrigendum/ public notice would also be given to enable any left out candidate whose documents have been found suspicious. The respondents as per their undertaking would pass speaking and reasoned orders after consideration of the documents submitted by the candidates.

In view of the above, all these cases are disposed of in the same terms as Civil Writ Petition No. 16683 of 2009, `Rashpinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.'', decided on 3.11.2009, portion whereof has been reproduced above.

Copy of the order be placed on each file of the connected cases taken up today.

Copy of the order be given under signatures of the Reader of this Bench.