Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: September 5, 2011
1. LPA No. 1506 of 2011 (O&M)
Raj Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
2. LPA NO. 1541 of 2011 (O&M)
Raj Kumar
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR
MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate,
for the appellant in LPA No. 1506 of 2011
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate,
for the appellant in LPA No. 1541 of 2011
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondent - State of Haryana
Mr. H.N Mehtani, Advocate,
for the respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? YES
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 as common question of law and facts are involved. However, the facts have been referred from LPA No. 1506 of 2011, which has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 2 against the order dated 4.8.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking the relief that he is eligible to apply for appointment to the post of Lecturer.
2. It is appropriate to mention that the Haryana Public Service Commission-respondent No. 2 (for brevity, 'the Commission') advertised 475 posts of Lecturer in the year 2009 with the last date of submitting the application being 27.11.2009. The petitioner-appellant Raj Singh applied for the same in the subject of Mathematics. He claimed that at the time of submitting the application, he was doing his Ph.D. from Singhania University, having been enrolled on 13.4.2009. The screening test was conducted on 12.9.2010.
3. His claim before the learned Single Judge as also before us is that on 26.7.2011 (P-2) a corrigendum was issued giving relaxation to some of the candidates who had been enrolled on 31.5.2009 and have acquired the degree of Ph.D. up to the date of interview. Likewise, another corrigendum on the same date was issued giving relaxation of 5% marks to those candidates belonging to SC/ST category and the date of submission of application form was extended up to 8.8.2011. The petitioner-appellant has claimed that he becomes eligible to apply up to 8.8.2011 as was the last date extended for the candidates belonging to SC/ST category.
4. When the matter came up for consideration of this Court on 1.9.2011, learned counsel for the Commission claimed that as per the original advertisement, the petitioner-appellant LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 3 was eligible to apply whereas the counsel for the petitioner- appellant claimed he was not eligible. The basic reason for their opposing stand was the original advertisement. Learned counsel for the Commission cited the advertisement which made the petitioner-appellant eligible. The last date for submitting the application according to the aforesaid advertisement was 27.11.2009 whereas learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has placed reliance on another advertisement which did not make him eligible and he became eligible only after issuance of corrigendum on 26.7.2011 (P-2). In view of the aforesaid opposing stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court required the Commission to produce the original record and passed the following order on 1.9.2011:-
" There are counter claims being made with regard to the advertised qualification. According to Mr. Mehtani, learned counsel for Haryana Public Service Commission Advertisement No. 7 (Mark 'A') was issued with Note:1 (a), which reads as under:-
"NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturer in Colleges.
Provided that the candidates who have acquired Ph.D Degree upto 31st May 2009 are exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment to the posts of Lecturers of equivalent positions in Colleges provided further LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 4 that those candidates who were enrolled for Ph.D degree upto 31 May, 2009 shall also become eligible for exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment to the posts of Lecturers or equivalent position in Colleges only on acquisition of Ph.D Degree."
It is noticed from the perusal of the aforesaid note that candidates who have acquired Ph.D Degree up to 31.5.2009 was not required to fulfill the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment to the post of Lecturer or equivalent position in Colleges. The advertisement further clarifies that those candidates who were enrolled for Ph.D. Degree up to 31.5.2009 shall become eligible for exemption from fulfilling the condition of NET/SLET only on acquisition of Ph.D. Degree. According to Mr. Mehtani, the corrigendum dated 26.7.2011 only made one clarification namely, that those who have acquired Ph.D. Degree by the date of the interview would be eligible otherwise they will loose the benefit.
On the contrary, Mr. R.K.Malik, learned Senior counsel has placed on record the advertisement (Mark 'B') which does not contain the clause which make those persons eligible who have been registered for Ph.D. Degree on or before 31.5.2009 and have LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 5 acquired the Ph.D.Degree. The similar part under Note:1(a) from the said advertisement reads as under:-
"National Eligibility Test shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer in College Cadre even for candidates who have acquired Ph.D upto 31 May 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for the recruitment and appointment to the posts of lecturer or equivalent positions in Colleges."
Keeping in view the aforesaid claim and counter claim made by counsel for the parties, we direct the Haryana Public Service Commission through its counsel to produce the original record and copy of the advertisement as appeared in the newspaper."
5. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the candidates who have acquired Ph.D. degree by 31.5.2009 were exempted from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment/appointment to the posts of Lecturers or equivalent position in colleges. However, the advertisement produced by the learned counsel for the Commission further clarified that those who are registered for Ph.D. degree up to 31.5.2009 have also been made eligible for exemption from the requirement of fulfilling the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment to the posts of Lecturers or equivalent position in colleges only on LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 6 acquisition of Ph.D. degree. The later part is claimed to be missing from the advertisement produced by the petitioner- appellant, which make even those persons eligible who are registered for Ph.D. degree up to 31.5.2009 and have also been held eligible for exemption from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET provided they acquire the Ph.D. degree. As a consequence, the petitioner-appellant could claim and argued that if the registration of Ph.D. on or before 31.5.2009 was the eligibility made by the corrigendum then he was entitled to be treated alike the candidates belonging to SC/ST category for whom another corrigendum was issued and their last date of submitting the application was extended to 8.8.2011.
6. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the Commission has produced the original record and submitted that Advertisement No. 7 issued by the Commission (Mark 'A') is in accordance with the original. We have compared the same and find that it tally with the original record whereas the advertisement produced by the petitioner-appellant is manipulated by deleting the material lines which obviously is an attempt to misrepresent the facts before the Court so as to acquire the eligibility for appointment and to argue that his date for making the application to the post in question be extended. We have also perused the newspaper 'The Tribune' where the advertisement is the same as has been shown to us by Mr. Mehtani on 1.9.2011.
7. Mr. Mehtani has also pointed out that the petitioner- appellant Raj Kumar (in LPA No. 1541 of 2011) had applied and LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 7 his application was received on 26.2.2010 after the closing date of 23.2.2010. He has shown us the original application sent by Shri Raj Kumar as well as the letter dated 13.8.2010 intimating him that the application has been received after the closing date.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is unfortunate that this case involves misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner-appellant in order to secure benefit of interim order, which was granted by this Court on 26.8.2011 (in LPA No. 1541 of 2011) to the effect that the result of viva-voce in respect of the posts of Lecturer in Geography, was not to be declared. The writ Courts are the Courts of equity. The Courts of equity are required to be kept absolutely clean. There are well known maxims of equity that 'he who seeks equity must do equity' and 'who comes to equity must come into with clean hands' and the misrepresentation before a Court of equity is fatal. A Full Bench judgment of this Court as early as 1978 rendered in the case of Chiranji Lal v. Financial Commissioner Haryana, Haryana, (1978) 80 PLR 582 (F.B.), (F.B.) dealt with the issue in a case where there was suppression of material facts which if disclosed would have dis-entitled the petitioner therein to the extra ordinary relief under the writ jurisdiction. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered the case of Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, India, JT 2010 (12) SC 134 has made the following observations:
" The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 8 such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. ......"
10. The above noted principle have been repeatedly applied by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands. Some of the cases are - Hari Narain v. Badri Das, Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558;
1558; Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P., A.P., (1983) 4 SCC 575;
575; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy
v. Government of Karnataka,,
Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261;
261; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,
Chengalvaraya Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1;
1; A.V. Papayya
Sastry v. Government of A.P.,
A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221;
221; Prestige Lights
Limited v. SBI,
SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449;
449; Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of
India,
India, (2008) 2 SCC 326;
326; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL,
SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481;
481;
G. Jayashree
Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel,
Patel, (2009) 3 SCC 141;
141; and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.,
U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114. In the last mentioned judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 9 the process of Court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the Court in passing order in their favour and observed:
" For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa"
(non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with LPA Nos. 1506 and 1541 of 2011 (O&M) 10 tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis added)
11. When the aforementioned principles of law are applied to the facts of the instant appeals, we find that an effort has been made to pollute the stream of justice by misleading the Court because had the petitioner-appellant(s) disclosed the full text of the advertisement then their claim to be considered on a later date by applying on the basis of extended date would have failed. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner-appellant(s) are not entitled to any relief which even otherwise would not be available to them and we uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
12. For the reasons stated above, these appeals fail. The orders of the learned Singe Judge are upheld and the petitioner- appellant(s) are saddled with the cost of `20,000/- in each of the appeals. The cost be paid to the Commission within a period of two months failing which appropriate proceedings be undertaken.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) SINGH) September 5, 5, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor