Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Davinder Kaur on 4 May, 2011
L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M).
Date of decision:- May 4th, 2011
State of Punjab & Ors. ... Appellants.
Versus
Davinder Kaur ... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 (in LPA Nos. 239, 158 and 131 of 2011)
Mr. S.S.Kamboj, Advocate,
for Avnish Mittal, Advocate
for respondent No.1 (in LPA No. 130 of 2011)
Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3 (in LPA No. 130 of 2011)
Mr. Davinder Singh-respondent No.3 in person
in LPA No. 158 of 2011.
Mr. Krishan Gopal Sehajpal, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 (in LPA No.1704 of 2010).
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of five appeals * filed by the State of Punjab under Clause X of the Letters Patent against similar orders dated 18.5.2010, 24.5.2010, 25.5.2010, 26.5.2010 and 28.5.2010, rendered by the learned Single Judge. However, the facts have been referred from LPA No.239 of 2011.
L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -2-
2. The petitioners-respondents had applied for the post of Teaching Fellows in various categories. Their candidature have been considered in General category. Later on their services were terminated, inter alia, on the allegation that the experience certificate produced by them was found to be bogus which was produced only to secure the appointment. The petitioners- respondents asserted before the learned Single Judge that their certificates were genuine and alternatively, it was argued even if the marks of experience are excluded still the petitioners-respondents would qualify on merit fulfilling all the conditions. In this regard reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of the same learned Single Judge rendered the case in Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (C.W.P. No. 11111 of 2009 decided on 18.3.2010). Learned Single Judge after placing reliance on the view taken in Parminder Kaur's case has issued the following directions:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the factual events noticed above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Committee to submit its report regarding validity of the experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner. Suffice it to observe that if the Committee and the Competent Authority are satisfied with the genuineness of the experience certificate produced by the petitioner, the permissible marks shall be awarded to her and based upon her overall merit, her claim for appointment will have to be considered. However, if the 'experience certificate' of the petitioner is held to be bogus, her L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -3- claim for appointment shall still be considered after excluding the marks for experience and in case she stands in merit list of general category, she shall be given appointment/permitted to join duties. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order."
3. It is appropriate to mention that the view taken in Parminder Kaur's case was challenged by the State of Punjab in LPA No. 927 of 2010, which has been partially allowed on 11.8.2010. In Parminder Kaur's case, the same learned Single Judge had issued directions to the effect that if the experience certificate submitted by her is found to be bogus then her claim for appointment was required to be considered after excluding the marks for experience and in case she qualifies in the merit list of general category, after excluding the marks for experience, she was to be given appointment and permitted to join her duties. Aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge had not been approved by the Letter Patent Bench in its order dated 11.8.2010, by observing in Para No.4 and 6 as under:-
"4. The Committee constituted by the learned Single Judge, may determine the authenticity of the certificate produced by the respondent-petitioner. If it is found to be authentic then appointment has to be given. However, it the certificate is found to be bogus by the Committee, then the respondent-petitioner becomes dis-entitled to claim any benefit with regard to her selection and appointment. Then in fact that matter should be taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioner-respondent as well L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -4- as the certificate issuing authority should be proceeded against as per the penal law of this country. It is well settled that law comes to the rescue of those who approach the court with clean hands especially under equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Fraud vitiate and dis-entitled any person from obtaining any relief. Any person if found to have approached this Court with soiled hands is rendered dis-entitled to have his case heard on merit and, therefore, the aforesaid direction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In support of aforesaid view, we place reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs and others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853. In para 1, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
6. As a sequel to the above discussion we set aside the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge and uphold the other part of the directions. We also make it clear that if the experience certificate is found to be bogus then the matter shall be taken to its logical conclusion as already observed in para 4 of this judgment. A compliance report be sent to this Court by December 20, 2010."
4. After the directions were issued, the compliance report was also L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -5- produced before the Bench where the certificate produced by Parminder Kaur was found to be bogus.
5. Mr. R.K.Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent No.1 has argued that certain technical para-meters are being applied by the appellants for determining the genuineness and authenticity of the experience certificate. According to the learned counsel a number of documents are being sought from the writ-petitioner-respondent which includes the copy of C.P.F/E.P.F and Pay deductions, record of salary paid by school and received by the teacher and proof of bank account and many other things. From the reply filed by some of them through C.M.No. 649 of 2011, the writ-petitioner-respondent appears to have submitted a number of documents to prove that their experience certificate is not bogus. For example, a copy of selection list, a copy of joining report have been submitted before the Committee. A copy of the total period of working has also been attached along with copy of pay bills and pay rolls register. Therefore, it is asserted that the enquiry initiated in pursuance to the directions issued by the letter patent appeal in LPA No. 927 of 2010 decided on 11.8.2010 may result into hyper technical investigation requiring the writ-petitioner-respondent to prove their experience certificate by proving certain peripheral facts.
6. We have noticed the aforesaid arguments in order to highlight that extreme technicality should be avoided by the appellant to determine the authenticity of the experience certificate produced by the writ-petitioner- respondent. A common sense view which a reasonable person would L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -6- conceive should be adopted. However, it would not mean that if the certificate is not owned by the authority issuing the same then that it would qualify to be authentic. It would also not be regarded as authentic if the certifcate is issued has been owned but there is no proof that the writ- petitioner-respondent actually worked and required experience. In any case the procedure adopted by the appellant cannot be adversely commented upon at this stage.
7. With the aforesaid observations the appeals are partially allowed to the extent that the learned Single Judge has directed the excluding of experience certificate and issuing appointment letter despite the production of a bogus certificate by a candidate. However, if the certificate produced by the writ-petitioner are found to be authentic and genuine then the same should be acted upon and selection/appointment shall be given to the writ- petitioner-respondent.
Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
May 4, 2011 (Gurdev Singh)
tripti Judge
Sr. LPA No. Parties Name CWP No. Date of order
No. of learend
Single Judge
1704 of 2010 State of Punjab & Ors 9656 of 2010 24.5.2010 1 Vs. Prabhjeet Kaur L.P.A No. 239 of 2011 (O&M). -7- Sr. LPA No. Parties Name CWP No. Date of order No. of learend Single Judge 130 of 2011 State of Punjab & Ors. 9917 of 2010 26.5.2010 2 Vs. Swaran Kaur & Ors 131 of 2011 State of Punjab & Ors. 10494 of 28.5.2010 3 Vs. Veerpal Kaur 2010 158 of 2011 State of Punjab & Ors. 9833 of 2010 25.5.2010 Vs. Manjinder Kaur & 4 Ors (M.M.Kumar) Judge May 4, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge