Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Rathee vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 October, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14272 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 06, 2009
Sandeep Rathee
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. K. C. Bhatia, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the appointment of respondent No.4 as Guest Science Master, besides seeking direction for his appointment in place of respondent No.4. By making reference to the criteria formulated by the State Government CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14272 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
for appointment to the post of Guest Teacher, it is pleaded that such appointment has to be strictly made on the basis of marks obtained in the prescribed qualification.
The petitioner and one Sunil Kumar appeared for appointment to the post of Guest Science Master on 12.11.2007. The petitioner has compared his marks in the qualifying exam with that of respondent No.4. As per this, the petitioner had obtained 57.17% marks in B.Sc, 66.20% marks in B.Ed. making an average of 61.68%. On the other hand, respondent No.4 had obtained 59% marks in B.Sc. and 60% marks in B.Ed. making an average of 59.5%. The petitioner would urge that selection has been made only on the basis of B.Sc. qualification, which would be against the criteria and, thus, has impugned the selection of respondent No.4.
This claim of the petitioner is in serious dispute as can be seen from the averments made in the reply. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any original certificate and had rather produced a photo copy of the certificate bearing Sr.No.4734, Roll No.8003. In this certificate, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 829 marks in B.Sc. and 662 marks in B.Ed. Committee at that stage found that the marks obtained, as disclosed by the petitioner in B.Sc. Qualification, the serial number and Roll Number were different than shown by the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce the original certificate. Though the petitioner was denied appointment on this short ground but the actual fact would be apparent from the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4. He would disclose the reason for which the petitioner did not show the original certificate. It is disclosed that the petitioner had manipulated the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14272 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
attested photo copy of the final Detailed Marks Certificate of B.Sc. The petitioner had produced a certificate showing grand total as 829 marks in B.Sc. Part I and Part II and 192 marks in Part III. This forgery could be detected as the petitioner had earlier applied for the post of Guest Science Master in the same very School, where he had produced the detailed marks certificate of the B.Sc examination with the same Roll Number and Serial number, giving out grand total marks as 697 out of which 506 marks were obtained in Part I and Part II examination and 191 marks in Part III examination. Copy of this detailed marks certificate is annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4 as Annexure R4/1. It is, thus, pleaded that the petitioner had produced a forged and fabricated mark sheet.
When this issue arose before the Court, the officiating Principal of the School was directed to be present in person alongwith the record. When the petitioner continued to dispute the actual marks obtained by him in B.Sc. Course, directions were issued to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University to intimate the marks obtained by the petitioner year/subject-wise. Vide order dated 15.4.2009, it was noticed that photo copies of Annexures P-5 to P-7 were sent to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University to enable him to inform the Court as to the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner. The report was placed on record in which it was mentioned that there was over-writing in the result sheet, whereby the petitioner had substantially increased his marks. This Court accordingly noticed that this would reveal an attempt to produce false evidence. The counsel for the petitioner then prayed for time to respond to this report. On his request, Kurukshetra University was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14272 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
impleaded as respondent No.5 through Registrar. The counsel representing the University then took time to file reply and also pointed out that enquiry was being conducted. In view of this falsehood, there was no case made out for further proceedings, yet on insistence by counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to enable the University to place on record the enquiry proceedings. This Court had accordingly adjourned the case to see as to what further action is required to be directed against the petitioner for committing this forgery. The enquiry conducted by the University has now been placed on record and would show the actual fact. The enquiry has found tempering in the detailed marks certificate issued to the petitioner. Finding this, the Committee has recommended that the detailed marks certificate and degree issued in respect of the mentioned roll number be cancelled with immediate effect. The Committee has further recommended that there is a clear case of tempering with the documents and forgery for which the University may file an FIR against the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the plea raised by the petitioner to seek his appointment as Guest Science Teacher.
As per the details noticed above, the petitioner has been found to have forged/tempered his detailed marks certificate, which is a serious issue. Though it is recommended that detailed marks certificate or degree be cancelled and FIR be lodged but it is not clear as to what further action has been taken. Very serious allegations are standing against the petitioner. This issue can not be left at that. The act and conduct of the petitioner would disclose commission of serious criminal offences. The University and the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14272 OF 2008 :{ 5 }:
State, therefore, would be under obligation to bring this case to its logical conclusion. Directions, therefore, are issued to the respondent-State and the University to proceed further against the petitioner by initiating criminal and/or other proceedings to cancel the degree etc. Needless to observe that the action against the petitioner would follow by observing due process of law, giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.
The writ petition shall stand dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the costs of this litigation, which is assessed as Rs.10,000/-.
October 06, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE