Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

separation of family available on the record, it can be safely presumed that respondent No.4 with a view to have undue benefit procured aforesaid documents, especially Annexure P-4, wherein his brother Vijay Kumar has been not shown to be member of the family. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has been not able to point out any material on record to support his aforesaid contention. While referring to Annexure A-5 annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that bare perusal of receipt placed on record, itself suggests that house tax, if any, qua the separate house owned and possessed by the brother of respondent No.4 was paid on 5.2.2008 meaning thereby, at the time of interview brother of the petitioner was not residing separately. While referring to Annexure A-5/2 annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that ration card came to be issued in favour of wife of brother of respondent No.4 just few months prior to issuance of interview letter and same was withdrawn after declaration of result, as is evident from certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned on 23.11.2008, Annexure P-6, perusal whereof reveals that vide resolution No.10, dated 23.9.2008 ration card in the name of wife of Vijay Kumar brother of respondent No.4 was cancelled and as such, it can be safely concluded that entry in the Pariwar register and issuance of separate ration card was camouflage. Though, aforesaid documents Annexure A-5/2 and Annexure P-6 suggest that ration card in the name of Smt. Anita Devi wife of Vijay Kumar was .

issued few months prior to interview for the post in question and same was withdrawn after selection of respondent No.4, but fact remains that aforesaid documents were very much in existence when respondent No.4 alongwith petitioner applied for the post in question and when result of the interview was declared by the interview committee.

6. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that bare perusal of Annexure A-5/2 and Annexure P-6, reveal that respondent No.4 in connivance with official of the Gram Panchayat procured false document with regard to separate entry of the house of Vijay Kumar, brother of respondent No.4, but since aforesaid documents were issued by the competent authority and same were in existence at the time of interview, no fault, if any, can be said to have been committed by the Interview Committee while awarding 10 marks to respondent No.4 on account of his being member of unemployed family.