Narender Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner challenges selection of Respondent No. 4 as a Constable under the Scheduled Caste (IRDP) category and the inclusion of Respondent No. 5 in the waiting list at serial No. 1. In nutshell, the case set out by the Petitioner is that on the date when the Petitioner was interviewed and appointed, he did not possess an IRDP certificate which fact substantiated by Annexure:P-5/E dated 10.9.2008.

Without adverting to the other submissions made on behalf of the parties, the reply of Respondents No. 1 to 3 may be considered. Paras 5 and 7 are reproduced in verbatim:

That the contents of this para 5 are admitted to the extent that a news item datelined Rajgarh 23rd February 2010 appeared in "Punjab Kesri" wherein it was reported that one Sh. Nitya Nand had made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Sirmour regarding selection of a candidate by producing forged IRDP certificate. It is humbly submitted that a complaint was made by Sh. Nitya Nand to the replying Respondent which was got enquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Sirmour, through S.H.O. Rajgarh. The enquiry revealed that the family of Respondent No. 6 was in BPL list w.e.f. 1998-99 to 18.2.2007. This family was deleted from B.P.L. list on 18.2.2007 by the resolution of Gram Panchayat. It was also revealed in the enquiry that the B.P.L. certificates are issued maximum for six months or the family crosses the property line. The photocopy received with complaint disclosed that there was interpolation in the dates of issuing the certificates during enquiry the B.D.O. stated that he had not signed the certificates as he was transferred from Rajgarh in the year 2006.

That in reply to this para it is reiterated that the complaint was got enquired into. It was revealed that the family of Respondents No. 4 & 5 had been deleted from B.P.L. list by Gram Panchayat vide resolution dated 18.2.207. However, Respondent No. 6 father of the Respondent No. 4 assailed the aforesaid resolution by submitting an appeal to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh vide order dated 15.10.2008 observed that the family of Sh. Attar Singh Respondent No. 6 was actually living below the poverty line but the Panchayat Authority has wrongly passed the resolution dated 18.2.2007. Thus the Sub Divisional magistrate dismissed the resolution and ordered that the family of Respondent No. 6 be entertained in B.P.L. list till June, 2008 and thereafter the family will not be considered in B.P.L. list. It is pertinent to submit here that the Respondent No. 4 appeared in ground test on 23.9.2007 and personality test on 17.6.2008 in Sirmour District. It is further submitted that the photocopy of B.P.L. certificate produced by Respondent No. 4 reveals that it has over-writing/interpolation in the renewal date. The report was sent by the S.P. Sirmour to Commandant Ist Bn. for taking further action. However, the Commandant Ist Bn. took up the matter with the Chairman Recruitment Board i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police Southern Range (now Inspector General of Police Southern Range Shimla). The Inspector General of Police Southern Range has been asked to probe the matter with regard to appointment of Sanju vide letter dated 19.7.2010 and report has been asked within a fortnight. It is pertinent to submit that the Respondent No. 4 was asked by the Commandant Ist Battalion under whom he is serving to appear before him and explain the position on 15.2.2010. He has submitted that original certificate of IRDP was not available with him as the same has been lost during the RTC. It is humbly submitted that the matter is being probed as to how the forged IRDP certificate produced by Respondent No. 4 was taken into consideration by the Recruitment Board. Action shall be taken as warranted under law. A copy of letter dated 19.7.2010 issued in this regard is appended as Annexure:R1.

It would thus be apparent and evident that on the date when the interview was conducted, Respondent No. 4 was not in possession of a certificate showing that he belongs to a family in the IRDP category. How and under what circumstances he was considered as such and appointed, has not been clarified save and except that photo copies of certificate was produced by him which is now the subject matter of departmental proceedings/criminal investigation.

It, thus, becomes obvious that on the date when Respondent No. 4 appeared for the interview and was appointed, he could not satisfy the essential criteria of belonging to an IRDP family.

Annexure:P5/G is an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh, District Sirmour on 13.10.2008/15.9.2008 (why there is confusion in the dates is also not clear) directing inclusion of the name of the father of Respondent No. 4 in the list of families belonging to IRDP with retrospective date. There is again no explanation as to how this order has been passed with retrospective effect.

Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 submits that it was by mistake that the name of the father of Respondent No. 4 was struck off from the list of families belongs to IRDP and that what the Sub Divisional Officer (SDM) has done is only correcting this error.

I do find it a bit strange that the selection which is presided over by high ranking police officials (Selection Committee) should ignore the very basic criteria to be followed for selection and appointment. I also find that despite the fact that the writ petition having been filed on 16th June, 2010, instead of proceeding with the inquiry expeditiously, it seems to have been kept on the back burner. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the order Annexure:P5/G has, in fact, been passed in accordance with law and that the exclusion of the name of the family of Respondent No. 4 was a mistake. Later on the list was corrected by the Panchayat.

He also submits that even if Respondent No. 4 is to be removed from service, the select list would be valid only for one year which period has now expired and the Petitioner would not be entitled to any appointment. This submission requires to be rejected out right. The eligibility criteria was to be satisfied on the date of interview/selection. The reply of Respondent-State reproduced in extenso supra is clear and does not support the case of Respondent No. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

1 The appointment of Respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside.

Respondents No. 1 to 3 shall re-consider the entire case afresh to determine as to whether by virtue of Annexure:P5/G the appointment of Respondent No. 4 could be validated and whether such an order could be produced after he had been appointed on 1.7.2008. The Respondents shall also determine as to under what circumstances the appointment order was issued to Respondent No. 4 without verification of his original documents. In case it is found that Respondent No. 4 does not satisfy the basic eligibility criteria or that his selection is in violation of the rules, it is but obvious that the Petitioner herein shall be entitled to appointment and the fact that the waiting list has exhausted cannot be used against the Petitioner.

This order/judgment shall have no bearing on the departmental inquiry or in criminal proceedings which are contemplated/ have been taken/initiated against Respondent No. 4 which shall needless to say, be concluded expeditiously. The entire exercise shall be completed by Respondents No. 1 to 3 not later than 31st December, 2010.

No order as to costs.