Telangana High Court
Bukya Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 11 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.418 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order passed by the second respondent- Commissioner and Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, in Proceedings Rc.No.191/RC- 1/2019, dated 13.12.2019 rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) on the ground that he has produced a fake Ranga Reddy local bona fide certificate, as illegal, arbitrary and without any proof of evidence and consequently, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner with all consequential benefits as Telugu Pandit Grade-II in DSC- 2008 as local candidate of Ranga Reddy District and to pass such other order or orders.
22 i). The brief facts, leading to the filing of present writ petition, are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) pursuant to DSC-2008 notification issued by the respondents. He has qualified in the written examination and at the time of certificate verification, it was observed that he has claimed to be a local candidate of Ranga Reddy District and he produced a bona fide certificate issued by the Head Master of MPPS, Cherlapatelguda, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for I to VII Classes during the years from 1988 to 1994 and also submitted another bona fide certificate of A.P. Residential School (Boys), Peddamma Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, for the classes VIII to X during the years from 1994 to 1999. The petitioner was under the selection zone as local candidate of the Ranga Reddy District. The District Selection Committee has noticed that the bona fide certificate of Ranga Reddy District submitted by the petitioner is a fake certificate and therefore, the issue was kept pending and it was 3 referred to the Mandal Educational Officer (MEO), Ibrahimpatnam for verification of the local Ranga Reddy bona fide certificate and also directed to file a criminal case against the individual for submitting the fake certificate.
2 ii). It is further submitted that on verification, the MEO, Ibrahimpatnam reported that as per the admission register No.1973 of the concerned school, one Sri K. Vigneshwar, whose date of birth is 10.10.1982, has joined in VI class on 13.06.1995 and completed X class and taken the TC No.003087 from the school on 13.06.2000. It was further reported that the admission register was started from the academic year 1995-96 with admission No.1973 on 13.06.1995. It was also reported that the admission register for the earlier academic year 1994-95 was closed before the said date, but with Admission No.1973 in favour of the petitioner i.e., B. Krishna, with date of birth 25.04.1982 who supposedly 4 joined in the school on 01.10.1988, but the details as to the admission of the class was not indicated in the said register and also there was no attestation of the concerned Head Master of the school. Therefore, it was reported that the local study certificate submitted by the petitioner was a fake one. Taking the same into consideration, the application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) in Ranga Reddy District was rejected and his case was also referred to police and police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2010 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 198 of IPC. Later, it was numbered as C.C.No.435 of 2010 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
2 iii). It is further submitted that the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, after perusal of the oral and 5 documentary evidence, found the accused No.1/ petitioner herein and other accused as not guilty of the charges for the alleged offences and they were acquitted of the same, vide judgment dated 22.12.2016. However, there was an observation that the petitioner has produced a fake Ranga Reddy local bona fide certificate. Therefore, the second respondent rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of Language Pandit (Telugu), through impugned order dated 13.12.2019. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri D.V. Shrikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed youth and belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and he has studied in Ranga Reddy District and has accordingly submitted the 6 bona fide certificate and that he was not aware that the said certificate was reported as a fake certificate. He submitted that the petitioner has studied in the said school and further that the criminal court also has dismissed the criminal case against him and therefore, the respondents should be directed to consider him for appointment for the post of Language Pandit (Telugu).
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing the respondents relied on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner only on the ground that the prosecution has not proved that the fake bona fide certificate has been issued and that the petitioner has participated in such an activity but not on merits by holding the certificate to be genuine. He further submitted that since the petitioner has not submitted the genuine bona fide certificate, he cannot be considered for 7 appointment to the said post merely on the ground of acquittal from the criminal case. With regard to DSC- 2008 notification, he submitted that the process of DSC- 2008 notification was completed and there are no vacancies available at present and subsequent notifications were also issued and all the vacancies have already been filled up by the respondents.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by both the counsel and the material placed on record, this Court finds that on the ground that the petitioner has submitted a fake bona fide certificate, a criminal case was registered against him and the same has ended in acquittal by the trial Court by observing that PW.7 Sub- Inspector of Police has not made proper investigation of the case to know the truth or otherwise about the genuineness of the document. Therefore, it is noticed that the said judgment has not given a finding that the bona fide certificate is not a fake certificate. It is only on the 8 ground that prosecution has failed to prove the case that the petitioner has been acquitted. This Court finds that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) is on the basis of the report of the MEO, Ibrahimpatnam. From the material on record, it is seen that the admission number given in the certificate produced by the petitioner is after closure of the admission register for the earlier academic year 1994-95 and that with the same admission number, the admission register of 1995-96 has also been started with another student. However, the entry of the admission of the petitioner for the academic year 1994- 95 without mentioning the class admitted to and without the counter signature of the Head Master of the school cannot be accepted as genuine. Therefore, the doubt raised by the MEO, Ibrahimpatnam about the genuineness of the certificate cannot be found fault with and since the petitioner has failed to prove the genuineness of the bona fide certificate, this Court is not 9 inclined to give a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) for DSC-2008. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 11.06.2024 Isn