Niraj Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J

In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Constable in

the District Police Force of Hazaribag District, North Chhotanagpur Range.

The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No.01 of 2004, the petitioner having requisite

qualification appeared in the physical and other tests conducted for appointment on the post of Constable. It has been averred that he was allotted

19 points and his name was published in the Notice Board as passed candidate. In May 2009 when the result was published, candidates viz. Shankar

Dayal Singh, Roll No.4378/Koderma and Roll No.189/Koderma having lesser points and age have been appointed but the petitioner has been

discarded. Being aggrieved by non-selection, the petitioner filed representation dated 28.06.2009 before the respondent authority but the same did not

evoke any response, as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner having no

alternative has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in discarding the candidature of the petitioner in spite of

the fact that the candidates having secured less marks than the petitioner have been appointed, is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power. Learned

counsel further submits that the respondents have not acted bona fide and the lawful claim of the petitioner has been thrown over board, which

infringes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit, repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in

the counter affidavit that petitioner secured 19 points and his date of birth is 20.04.1984, has not been selected whereas one another aspirant having 19

points and his date of birth is 16.05.1984 has been selected. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Board, Hazaribagh in a

meeting held on 31.01.2010, vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, in terms of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. It has further been stated

that on the basis of verification of the documents of the petitioner, vide Annexure-B, correspondence was made to the concerned school but the

Principal of the School namely Rajkiyakrit Madhya Vidyalaya, Sarsa, Deoghar replied vide letter dated 26.04.2010 that no such document has been

issued by the School, as evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit.Â

Reply to the counter affidavit dated 20.02.2018 has been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been submitted that the Committee has recommended

the case of the petitioner in the meeting dated 31.01.2010. It has been stoutly denied by the petitioner that he has produced the school leaving

certificate of Rajkiyakrit Middle School, Sarsa, Deoghar rather he has submitted the school leaving certificate of Sri Hira Pandey, Sanskrit Primary-

cum-Medical School, Jaitipur, Nalanda. It has further been submitted that in view of the decision of the meeting of North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh

Selection Council dated 31.01.2010 the petitioner is entitled for appointment.

A supplementary counter affidavit dated 03.05.2018 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.6 wherein it has been averred that petitioner has

not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands because when the appointment of the petitioner could not have taken place with fake certificate,

the petitioner subsequently tried to get his appointment with the help of another set of fabricated certificates/documents as evident from Annexure-A

series to the supplementary counter affidavit.Â

Learned counsel for the State by referring to the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents has vociferously

submitted that because of discrepancy in the documents/certificates produced by the petitioner, which has been confirmed by the enquiry conducted

by the respondents, petitioner cannot be a beneficiary of alleged act of forgery.

After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, there is no denying of the fact that in the Committee

which was constituted under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, Giridih dated 31.01.2010, it was decided that the case of the petitioner

ought to have been considered since a person below the petitioner was appointed. Since there was discrepancy with regard to the

certificates/documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of making such application in pursuance to Advertisement no.01 of 2004 and during

process of selection another set of school leaving certificate was produced by the petitioner, therefore, upon enquiring into the matter, the discrepancy

with regard to the certificate produced by the petitioner was affirmed by the letter dated 26.04.2010 made by the Principal of the School namely

Rajkiyakrit Madhya Vidyalaya, Sarsa, Deoghar, therefore, the office of the Superintendent of Police, Giridih vide letter dated 27.06.2010 cancelled the

candidature of the petitioner as evident from Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit. Since the matter pertains to appointment of

Constable in pursuance to Advertisement no.01/2004 which has attained its finality as per the decision dated 18.08.2010 taken by the Director General

of Police, Ranchi, therefore, at such distance of time, this Court would be loath to tinker with the process of selection lest it would unsettle the settled

position.Â

Though a favourable decision has been taken by the Committee constituted under Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, Giridih on 31.01.2010

but for the discrepancy in the certificate produced by the petitioner having been confirmed on due enquiry, no relief can be granted to the petitioner

because of his involvement in the production of forged documents.

View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others as reported in (2013)

9 SCC 363, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph 13 has held 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:Â

“… 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€​

In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court refrains from acceding to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.