Gauhati High Court
Pankaj Mech vs The Oil India Ltd. And 5 Ors on 3 August, 2022
Author: R.M. Chhaya
Bench: R.M. Chhaya, Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010120962022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/235/2022
PANKAJ MECH
S/O SRI SARBESWAR MECH, R/O VILL. QUARTER, OIL DULIAJAN P.O.
DULIAJAN, P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786602
VERSUS
THE OIL INDIA LTD. AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY T HE RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FIELD HEAD
QUARTER, OIL DULIAJAN, P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH,
ASSAM, PIN-786602
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (ER)
FIELD HEAD QUARTER
OIL DULIAJAN
P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ER)
OIL DULIAJAN
P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
4:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION
KRISHNA KANTA HANDIQUI STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
PATGAON
RANI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
Page No.# 2/8
ASSAM
PIN-781017
5:THE PRINCIPAL
DULIAJAN COLLEGE
P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
6:NABAJYOTI SARMA
OFFICE ASSISTANT DULIAJAN COLLEGE STUDY CENTRE
KRISHNA KANTA HANDIQUI STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
DULIAJAN COLLEGE
P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM PIN-78660
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, OIL
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA 03.08.2022 (R.M. Chhaya, CJ.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5431/2019, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal that the respondent Oil Company published an advertisement for recruitment of Multi Tasking Drilling Crew 'Trainee', Grade-V being advertisement made under Notification No.ER:30/1/9-1265 dated 13.08.2016. The said advertisement prescribed that the number of post and reservation for the said post was 105 and the essential qualifications were prescribed as under;
Page No.# 3/8 "i. Passed Class 10 or equivalent from Govt. Recognized Board. ii. Passed ITI either in Fitter or Machanist or turner or instrument Mechanic or Welder or Mechanic Diesel or Electrician or Mechanic Motor Vehicle Trade from a Govt. Recognized Institute."
It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that pursuant to the said advertisement as according to the appellant/original petitioner, he possessed the essential qualification for the said post, applied for the same for which an admit card was given on scrutiny of the application filed by the appellant, under No.1607040913. The written test came to be conducted on 19.03.2017 at Dibrugarh University campus. As the record unfolds that the appellant/original petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and the respondent authority with the letter bearing reference No.ER:REC/03/2017/1607040913 dated 18.12.2017 asked the appellant/original petitioner to report for pre-employment formalities on 4.1.2018 at the premises of the respondent Oil Company situated at Duliajan and further asking the appellant/original petitioner to bring the employment registration card, pass certificate, mark-sheet etc. It is pertinent to note at the outset that in response to the said letter dated 18.12.2017, the petitioner approached the said authority and submitted the following documents:
"a. HSLC Admit issued by the Controller, Board of Secondary Education, Assam;
b. HSLC Mark-Sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam; c. Provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the Secretary, State Council for vocational Training;
d. Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Purbanchal Karikori High School;
Page No.# 4/8 e. Enrolment Certificate issued by the Registrar, Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University;
f. Mark-Sheet of Bachelor Preparatory Programme (BPP, in short), issued by the (OSD Examinations) Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University;
g. Mark Sheets of the 1st to 5th Semester issued by the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University;
h. Provisional Pass Certificate issued by the Principal and Centre-In- Charge, Duliajan College Study Centre of KKHSOU."
Even as per the appellant/original petitioner at the time of submission of the documents, the appellant could not submit the mark-sheet relating to 6 th Semester of B.A. examination as well as the original birth certificate as even according to the appellant/original petitioner, the same were not available to him from the college. It is, however, the case of the appellant/original petitioner that he submitted a provisional certificate issued to him under the seal and signature of the in-Charge Principal of Duliajan College Study Centre of the University.
3. It appears from the record that on further scrutiny, it was found by the respondent authorities that the University had not issued any provisional pass certificate and the mark-sheet. It is the further case of the appellant/original petitioner that on acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid forgery, the appellant/original petitioner informed the Principal-cum-Centre-In-Charge of Duliajan College Study Centre and accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the erring officer, namely, Sri Nabajyoti Sarma, who was working as the Office Assistant of the said college, with the Duliajan Police Station being Duliajan P.S. Page No.# 5/8 Case No.58/2018 for the offences under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. It is the say of the appellant/original petitioner that he had no role to play in the same and in fact, the accused had already confessed his guilt. Relying upon the communication dated 5.5.2018 issued by the Principal In-Charge of the said college to the respondent Oil Company, it is contended that Sri Nabajyoti Sarma, the accused had admitted his guilt and that the appellant/original petitioner had no role to play. It is also the case of the appellant/original petitioner that the said clerk was involved in several other such incidents.
4. The record indicates that as the fake certificate was annexed and relied upon by the appellant/original petitioner, by the impugned communication dated 29.05.2019, the respondent authorities cancelled the provisional selection of the appellant/original petitioner for the post of Multi Tasking Drilling Crew 'Training', Grade-V and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised and the submissions made, upheld the order of cancellation, however, quashed and set aside the observation regarding blacklisting of the appellant/original petitioner for any future appointment in the Oil Company while disposing of the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this appeal.
6. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions Page No.# 6/8 raised before the learned Single Judge and inter alia canvassed that no fraud had been committed by the appellant/original petitioner and he is innocent. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the advertisement, the minimum eligible qualifications were that of 10 th pass and therefore, there is no reason for the appellant to furnish a false certificate. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that even on the basis of his 10th mark-sheet, the appellant would be eligible. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in upholding the impugned communication whereby the provisional selection of the appellant for the post of Multi Tasking Drilling Crew 'Trainee', Grade-V had been cancelled. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities have no right to cancel the provisional selection of the appellant and as such the very impugned communication is arbitrary and illegal.
8. Per contra, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Oil Company submitted that the appellant/original petitioner had knowingly submitted the false certificate. It was also contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the appellant/original petitioner is beneficiary of the same and cannot be permitted to plead any ignorance and/or innocence. The learned senior counsel referring to paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment invited attention of this Court to the fact that the appellant/original petitioner had in fact submitted before the learned Single Judge that even if the cancellation of the provisional selection is upheld, the permanent blacklisting would have immense adverse civil consequences. Therefore, it is not open for the appellant to now contend that the impugned communication dated Page No.# 7/8 29.05.2019 is bad. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the appeal is meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed. No other or further contentions or grounds are canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. Upon considering the submissions made, it is a matter of fact that the appellant obtained the provisional pass certificate from the college and had relied and submitted the same before the authorities. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the appellant/original petitioner was personally well aware about the fact that he had not cleared the said examination of 6 th semester of B.A. and therefore, even if it is believed that the said clerk, Mr. Nabajyoti Sarma, who was subjected to criminal proceeding, was guilty, the fact remains that the appellant/original petitioner had personal knowledge about the fact that he had not cleared the said examination and therefore, there cannot be any provisional passing certificate. Therefore, the appellant/original petitioner now cannot be permitted to plead ignorance and innocence. The appellant/original petitioner is an educated person and being personally well aware of the fact that his result was withheld, still, however, with proper understanding filed the false certificate. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the minimum qualification was 10th pass and that the appellant possessed the said qualification are of no consequences in the event when in a public appointment the appellant himself relied upon a false certificate with personal knowledge. The respondents have, therefore, rightly cancelled the provisional selection of the appellant/original petitioner. A provisional selection based upon a false certificate does not even otherwise create any indefeasible right in favour of the appellant/original petitioner.
Page No.# 8/8
10. Apart from this, it is also a matter of fact that the appellant/original petitioner did submit before the learned Single Judge that even if the cancellation is not interfered with, the order of permanent blacklisting may be interfered and the learned Single Judge has in fact partly allowed the petition. In the facts of this case, it cannot be gainsaid that the impugned communication dated 29.05.2019 is in any manner be termed as arbitrary or illegal as sought to be canvassed by the appellant before this Court.
11. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Having candidly submitted a false certificate and the very foundation of the same is based on fraud cannot be countenanced. It is not the case of the appellant/original petitioner that the college or the clerk suo moto issued provisional passing certificate and this Court has reason to believe that for his own benefit, the appellant/original petitioner obtained the same knowing fully well that he, not having cleared the final examination would not be entitled to any provisional passing certificate. In totality of facts, therefore, no case for interference is made out. The appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant