Dismissed

Abhishek Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2019WPC/880/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's compassionate appointment. The petitioner produced a forged intermediate certificate to secure the job despite a disclosure clause. The Court held that fraud vitiates all actions and, since the petitioner admitted procuring the certificate illicitly, the appointment was validly cancelled with no fault on th

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Abhishek Hansda Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 880 of 2018

¶2

Abhishek Hansda …. …. Petitioner(s).

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi

¶5

Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, PO Giridih P.S Giridih (T), district, Giridih

¶6

Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, PO Giridih P.S Giridih (T), district, Giridih

¶7

Additional Collector, Giridih, PO Giridih P.S Giridih (T), district, Giridih

¶8

Sub-Divisional Officer, Khari Mahua, PO & PS Khari Mahua, Dist. Giridih

¶9

Circle Officer, Dhanwar, PO & PS Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih

¶10

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶11

------

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶13

¶14

FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.3, SC Mines

¶15

¶16

06/05.03.2019

¶17

In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.08.2017 in Memo No. 748 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Giridih by which the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been cancelled. He also prays to re-instate him with all consequential benefits. 2. Father of the petitioner namely Peka Hansda was a permanent employee and he was posted as a Clerk in the Block Office, Birni in the District of Giridih. He died on 11.8.2010 in harness. This petitioner, who is the son of the deceased applied for appointment on compassionate ground. He claims that he has passed Secondary School Examination and thereafter did his intermediate in Science, certificate of which was issued by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. On the basis of the aforesaid two degrees, he applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was considered and thereafter vide order dated 7.6.2016 in Memo No. 670, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, subject to the condition that his educational testimonials would be verified by the department, then only his services would be approved. The documents were verified by the department and it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner showing him to be intermediate pass was fake, which was not even issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Thereafter petitioner was issued a show-cause on 8^th July 2017 contained in Memo No. 571 by which he was asked to furnish a proper reply as to why his appointment would not be cancelled as he has produced forge intermediate certificate. The petitioner filed a reply on 25.7.2017 admitting the

¶18

-2-

¶19

said position. The respondent-authorities thereafter vide impugned letter dated 31^st August 2017 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. This order is under challenge before this Court.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner submits that for Class-IV employees’ minimum qualification for compassionate appointment is matriculation examination thus respondents should not have given weightage to the intermediate certificate. He submits that admittedly the matriculation certificate is not a forged document and when the said document is genuine, the case of the petitioner has to be considered sympathetically.

¶21

Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, SC Mines, appearing on behalf of respondents submits that admittedly the petitioner has committed fraud and has produced I.Sc certificates which has not been issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. He submits that petitioner has sought appointment on basis of forged educational certificate thus, the action of the respondents is proper in removing him from service. He submits that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as notice was served upon him to which he replied. He submits that infact the petitioner had admitted that he has obtained the certificate after giving money. He submits that fraud vitiate all action thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgments as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 in the case of Devendra Kumar Vrs State of Uttarakhand & Ors and (2007) 5 SCC 65 in the case of State of Manipur & Ors. Vrs. Y. Token Singh & Ors.

¶22

After hearing the parties, I find that the facts are admitted in this case. Petitioner’s father was admittedly an employee under respondents, who died in harness on 11.8.2010. After his death the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The respondents considered his case and issued a letter dated 7.6.2016. The said letter of appointment clearly mention that appointment is temporary and certificate produced by him would be verified and if it is found that the said document is improper then his services will be terminated. The petitioner at the time of appointment produced a certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. On verification, it was found that the said certificate was fake. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that he with connivance with some other persons obtained the said certificate after

¶23

-3-

¶24

paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and admits that the said certificate is forged. Thus, this is admitted fact that on the basis of forged certificate, the petitioner has been appointed. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates all actions. In the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2005)7 SCC 605 , the Supreme Court has held that fraud and justice never dwell together. Further in the case of Meghmala V. G. Narasimha Reddy , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 the Supreme Court at para-28 has held that it is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. In Para-32 of the same judgement it has been observed that the ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud

¶25

In view of the judgment cited above and proposition of law and in view of the admitted facts that the petitioner had obtained employment on forged documents, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application.

¶26

Since the petitioner has obtained his appointment by producing a forged document which is also admitted by the petitioner, I find no fault in the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order.

¶27

Further the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend his case by filing reply to show-cause notice. Petitioner admitted the aforesaid fact of producing forged documents.

¶28

Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application.

¶29

Accordingly this application stands dismissed.

¶30

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶31

anjali/ C.P 2

Abhishek Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

New Advocates Clerk Association through Its President Shri Jitendra Kumar Malityar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr Its Secretary Revenue And Welfare Department and Ors.

Arjun Karmali Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Manish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sushila Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Hema Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand