Sanjay Sharma vs State of Raj.

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J—The petitioner is aggrieved of the termination of his employment as ''Technical Helper'', w.e.f. 4th July, 2011 (Annexure-6), communicated to him vide communication dated 8th April, 2011 (Annexure-7), and therefore, has approached this court praying for the following relief(s):--

"(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quash and set aside the impugned order of termination including recovery of all the emoluments paid to him including expenses incurred on training etc. dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(ii) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 3/2012 (Annexure-9) and its further proceedings.

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner was successfully participated in response to advertisement dated 8th May, 2009, published by Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), for appointment to the post of ''Technical Helper'', against 1390 vacancies, as would be evident from order dated 13th April, 2010, wherein his name found place at serial number 152. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that his substantive employment has been put to an end vide impugned order dated 4th July, 2011, which is illegal and arbitrary as well as in violative of principles of natural justice. Further, the action has been taken without having recourse to any enquiry which was imperative in the facts of the case.

Mr. Virendra Dangi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application asserted that the petitioner being successful in response to the advertisement for appointment to the post of ''Technical Helper'', was accorded substantive appointment. One of the condition of the offer of appointment specifically stipulated that the services of the ''Probationer Trainee'', can be terminated with immediate effect at any time by giving one month''s notice in writing or by giving one month''s remuneration in lieu thereof except in case of misconduct of any description where services could be terminated as per relevant provisions, without giving any kind of notice and such persons would not be entitled to any kind of compensation.

According to the learned counsel, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the respondent-JVVNL, for the alleged discrepancy in the total original marks ''515'', as reflected marks-sheet issued by ITI (NCVT); which according to the respondent-JVVNL, was false/interpolated to read as ''545''. It is further contended that the last cut-off marks in the recruitment process were 311. Even if the marks as reflected in the marks-sheet of the petitioner, issued by ITI (NCVT), were to be taken as ''515'', still the petitioner could have made his place in the list of successful candidates. Thus, there was no reason for the petitioner to interpolate/forge the marks in the photo copy of the marks-sheet allegedly the submitted by him.

According to the learned counsel the original marks-sheet which was in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to submit the same thereto; the marks indicated in the marks-sheet were ''515''. Had the petitioner any intention to carry out any interpolation/forgery he would also accordingly made interpolation in the marks of different subjects in the marks-sheet so as to total ''545''. The marks which were forged/interpolated in the photo copy of the marks-sheet submitted to the respondent-JVVNL was done by somebody else in not by the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at Bar.

Indisputably, the petitioner successfully participated in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent-JVVNL for the post of ''Technical Helper, and his name found place at serial place at 152, in the list of successful candidates, as would be evident from the offer of appointment dated 13th April, 2010. The terms and conditions in the offer of appointment specifically stipulated that in the event, certificate of SCVT/NCVT is found forged/fake, the ''Probationary Trainee'' shall be liable to pay the amount as per para 4 and 20 to JVVNL (Proforma enclosed as Appendix-4).

The condition at clause-20, further provided that the appointment is purely temporary and subject to verification of NCVT/SCVT certificate/marks-sheet from the issuing authority. In case, the certificate/marks-sheet is reported forged/manipulated by the Issuing Authority, the appointment of concerned person will stand automatically cancelled and he/she will be liable to refund to JVVNL, all the emoluments paid to him/her including expenses incurred on training etc. Besides, criminal case will be filed against such candidate. At this juncture, it would be relevant to consider the text of Clause-6 and 20 of the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment which reads thus:--

"6. The candidates will have to bring a surety of a Gazetted Officer of Central/State Government or an employee of JVVNL. (Minimum pay scale No. 3-Grade Pay) having at least 10 years service in RSEB/JVVNL. In this kind of surety it shall have to be mentioned that in case the candidate leaves services of JVVNL without making compliance of conditions as stipulated at para 4 above or his/her certificate of SCVT/NCVT is found forged/fake, the surety shall be liable to pay the amount as per para 4 and 20 to JVVNL (proforma enclosed as Appendix-4).

This appointment is purely temporary and subject to verification of NCVT/SCVT certificate/marks sheet from the issuing authority. If certificate/marks sheet is reported forged/manipulated by the Issuing Authority, appointment of concerned person will stand automatically cancelled and he/she will be liable to refund to JVVNL, all the emoluments paid to him/her including expenses incurred on training etc. Besides, criminal case will be filed against him."

A conjoint reading of clause-6 and 20, of the offer of appointment would reveal that offer of appointment, accorded to the petitioner being successful candidate for appointment to the post of ''Technical Helper'', as ''Probationer Trainee'', for two years on a fixed remuneration Rs. 5900/-(Five thousand nine hundred) per month; was subject to the condition that the certificate/marks-sheet submitted was genuine and correct. Any forgery/manipulation therein would rendered the temporary appointment automatically cancelled in addition of initiation of criminal proceedings.

In the instant case at hand, the marks-sheet that was submitted by the petitioner with reference to his ITI (NCVT) qualification was sent for verification to the Issuing Authority i.e. Director (Training, Directorate Technical Education Rajasthan, Jodhpur, who vide his letter dated 13th June, 2011, informed that the total marks has shown in the ITI (NCVT) marks-sheet of the petitioner has been found manipulated to read as ''545'', whereas his actual total marks are ''515'', as per record of the Directorate. The respondent-JVVNL having received the response of the issuing authority on the marks-sheet, as per terms and conditions of the offer of appointment, passed impugned order dated 4th July, 2011, terminating the employment of the petitioner from the post of ''Technical Helper'', as ''Probationer Trainee''.

The petitioner, in the instant case at hand, in his marks-sheet interpolate the total marks to read as ''545'' instead of ''515''. From the representation addressed by the petitioner to the respondent-JVVNL in the year 2012, the reasons detailed out are more in the nature of a defence after his employment was put to an end vide impugned order dated 4th July, 2011.

Moreover, the fact that the petitioner was called upon to furnish the original marks-sheet and the same was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-JVVNL after 8 to 10 months of the recruitment process is not reflected by any substantive piece of documentary evidence on record.

Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioner was selected in the recruitment process on the basis of photo copy of the marks-sheet wherein his total marks were indicated as ''545'' instead of the "515", is not in dispute. It is further reflected from the materials available on record that a criminal case instituted for offense u/S. 420, 468, 467, 471, 120B IPC, is also pending against the petitioner.

It is not understood, as argued by the learned senior counsel, as to why somebody else would have committed forgery/interpolation in the marks-sheet of the petitioner to read his total marks as ''545'' instead of ''515''. Moreover, the photo copy of the marks-sheet was submitted by none-else but the petitioner himself. There has been a constant increase of the cases, wherein the individuals participating in the recruitment process have indulged in forgery, fraud and fake certificates of educational qualifications in order to seek public employment.

In the case at hand the respondent-employer in no uncertain terms stipulated a condition that the appointment was purely temporary and subject to verification of NCVT/SCVT certificate/marks-sheet from issuing authority and in case, the certificate/marks-sheet is reported forged/manipulated by the issuing authority, the appointment of the concerned persons will stand automatically cancelled with the consequence of refund of all the emoluments paid to him/her including expenses incurred on training etc. The Criminal proceedings were also to instituted in addition thereto.

The authorities are entrusted with the responsibility to undertake recruitment strictly in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. Once the fraud is detected, the appointment order is itself vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of the employee (s). In such a fact situation, the employer would be at liberty to recall such an order much less in the face of a condition specifically stipulated in the offer of appointment to that effect.

No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. Any employment if obtained by committing fraud, such a fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law.

The petitioner, in the instant case at hand, submitted a photo copy of the certificate of NCVT/SCVT which was found with interpolation in the total marks indicated as ''545'' instead of ''515''. Thus, there is no room for any doubt that the beneficiary of the interpolation/forgery was none else but the petitioner himself.

Since forgery/interpolation in the total marks was specifically indicated by the issuing authority; the action of the respondent-employer in terminating the services of the petitioner as "Probationer Trainee", as per terms and conditions of the offer of appointment, cannot be faulted.

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the action of the respondent-JVVNL in terminating the employment of the petitioner for the manipulation/forgery in the marks-sheet, the basis of the selection; cannot be faulted.

The writ application is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs.