Allahabad High Court
Smt.Neeraj Chaturvedi vs Director Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar ... on 27 April, 2022
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2801 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt.Neeraj Chaturvedi Respondent :- Director Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Nideshalaya Lucknow Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K.Nayak ALONGWITH Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1337 of 2012 Petitioner :- Smt. Neeraj Chaturvedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibh Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kr. Pandey Dani Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On the consent of the parties, both the petitions are heard together.
Petitioner has raised challenge to the order dated 23.04.2010, passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Karyakatri on the ground that the order of appointment was obtained on a forged and manufactured income certificate. The companion writ petition raises challenge to the appointment of the fifth respondent, therein, who came to be appointed after the termination of the petitioner.
The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. Pursuant to Advertisement No. C-11 dated 03.07.2008, applications were invited for appointment of Angan Bari Karyakatri in Gram Panchayat, Gharwaspur Chaubey, Tehsil Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar, under General category. Total 8 applications were received, petitioner came to be selected under the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category on the recommendation of the Block Level Selection Committee, on a condition that selection of the petitioner was made subject to verification of the income certificate produced by the petitioner, by the Tehsil authorities at Bhiti, since there was overwriting on the annual income figure.
Smt. Poonam Tiwari, under the Above Poverty Line (APL) category, impleaded as fifth respondent in the companion writ petition was placed at second place being senior in age.
It appears that a complaint came to be filed by Smt. Usa Devi, against the petitioner alleging that the income certificate of the petitioner is a forged and manufactured document. On the direction of this Court dated 04.02.2010 passed in a petition being Writ Petition No. 644 (S/S) 2010 (Smt. Usha Devi Versus State) the impugned order dated 23.04.2010 came to be passed by the second respondent, wherein, a finding has been returned, after obtaining report from the Tehsildar Bhiti, after due enquiry, that in the register recording income certificates the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 925 and her annual income is recorded at Rs. 30,000/-, whereas, the income certificate filed by the petitioner for the post recorded income at Rs. 19,880/- interpolated by way of overwriting. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner came to be cancelled and a fresh selection was directed to be undertaken. It appears that Smt. Poonam Tiwari approached this Court by filing a petition. On the direction of this Court, she being second in the order of merit was granted appointment. Consequently, the order of appointment of Smt. Poonam Tiwari is under challenge in the companion writ petition no. 1337 of 2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the following grounds: (i) that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or show cause before passing of the impugned order; (ii) that the information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from the concerned Tehsildar it has been informed that certificate no. 725 recording annual income at Rs. 19,880/- was issued to the petitioner.
In this back drop, it is urged that the finding returned by the second respondent is perse perverse as admittedly the income certificate relied upon by the petitioner was duly issued by the Tehsildar. In other words, it is urged that the income certificate is genuine as it has been issued by the competent authority.
In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that in the counter affidavit the extract of the register has been filed, wherein, the name of the petitioner is recorded at serial no. 925, neither the entry, nor the annual income recorded therein has been challenged by the petitioner. It is not being disputed that the entries recorded in the register do not pertain to the petitioner. Admittedly, the certificate filed by the petitioner is interpolated The submission that is being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is based on an information received under the RTI Act that the certificate was issued by the Tehsil authorities bearing no. 725. The factum of issuance of the income certificate would be of no assistance to the petitioner as a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that there was interpolation and cutting on the annual income and the appointment was subject to verification of the income certificate. This fact is admitted and not denied by the petitioner.
After direction of this Court, on a complaint, the matter was verified and enquired into and it was found that the annual income of the petitioner is at Rs. 30,000/-, hence, she was not eligible. Petitioner has not raised any challenge to the entries made in the register, nor any material has been placed before this Court to suggest that the income of the petitioner is not at Rs. 30,000/- but much less. Mere issuance of the income certificate by the Tehsil authorities would not mean that the annual income recorded therein is the true income. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the figure (income) was interpolated by way of overwriting, but for the interpolation the petitioner would not have qualified to be selected.
Insofar as giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the given facts, would not arise as the entry is made in a public document and upon enquiry, the Tehsildar certified on the basis of the record that the document relied upon by the petitioner is manufactured and a fraudulent document which does not reflect the correct annual income. Even otherwise, before this Court, petitioner is unable to assail the document that has been filed as C.A.-1 bringing on record the extract of the register and the entry made therein insofar it relates to the petitioner. The principle of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula that opportunity of hearing is required to be given in all the cases as a matter of rule. In the facts of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show as to how the petitioner was prejudiced. The register nor its entry is in challenge, further, there is an admission with regard to the interpolation of the annual income recorded in the certificate produced by the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the opportunity of hearing would have been an empty formality in the backdrop of the admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that in the extract of the register that has been filed by the State-respondent, after serial no. 724, serial no. 925 is recorded which, prima facie, shows either there is interpolation or the register itself is a manufactured document.
Be that as it may, this Court in writ jurisdiction would not enter into disputed questions of fact to return a finding as to whether the document relied upon by the respondents is a manufactured document, the remedy available to the petitioner would lie before the competent civil court. Fraud and misrepresentation is a question of fact and law which can be gone into after taking evidence. The writ court is called upon to decide the matter, inter se, parties on affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, neither the document has been challenged, nor it has been denied by the petitioner that his name does not find entry at serial no. 925 recording annual income of the petitioner at Rs. 30,000/-. The serial number 725 is nowhere recorded in the register. Further, there is no allegation of malafide against the officials of the Tehsil.
In the circumstances, prima facie, it appears that petitioner procured a document which was the basis for his selection. The document upon enquiry was found to be forged and manufactured document. Since petitioner has not denied the entries and the extract of the register brought on record by the State-respondents the plea that petitioner has been prejudiced for want of hearing is unsustainable. Before this Court, petitioner has not produced any document to show that the entry in the register at serial no. 925 is not a genuine entry or forged entry, nor petitioner has alleged any malafides against any of the officials.
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.
No cost.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022 K.K. Maurya