Dismissed

Srikant Das v. Education

Jharkhand HC23 Mar 2022WPC/3084/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a Para Teacher. Acknowledging the appointment was obtained via fraud regarding marks, the court held that appointment obtained by fraud does not require regular departmental proceedings, and the cancellation upon unsatisfactory response to a show-cause notice was justified.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Srikant Das Vs Education — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 3084 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Srikant Das ……… Petitioner . Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma.

¶8

The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Koderma.

¶9

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koderma.

¶10

The Block Education Extension Officer, Markacho, Koderma.

¶11

………. Respondents .

¶12

¶13

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶14

----------For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Boby, AC to GA-I ----------

¶15

07/ 23.03.2022 Heard the parties.

¶16

2. Petitioner has assailed the order of cancellation of his appointment, which was issued vide memo No. 840 dated 06.05.2016.

¶17

3. As per the factual matrix, an advertisement was floated by the office of District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, for appointment to the post of Assistant Inter Trained Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Bela Under Markacho Block. The petitioner fulfilling the requisite qualification had appeared in the recruitment process and had obtained 56.61 marks and as such, was appointed to the said post. Upon his appointment, the petitioner joined the said post in light of order dated 04.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work on the said post to the full satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. But all of a sudden vide letter dated 11.04.2016, a show-cause was issued to him seeking explanation as to why not his services be terminated on the ground that he has obtained appointment on the basis of forged and manipulated marksheet. The petitioner replied to the same, which was not found satisfactory and vide letter No. 840 dated 06.05.2016, the appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled.

¶18

¶19

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

¶20

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner as narrated in the writ petition that there was no interpolation on his part rather, he had obtained 54.16 marks and on that basis appointment was done and there is no any fraud played on his part. After appointment, the same cannot be cancelled without initiation of a regular departmental proceeding and any enquiry. It is further case of the petitioner that since the order dated 06.05.2016 has been issued without adhering the cardinal principle of law, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

¶21

5. On the other hand, Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that when appointment has been obtained on fraudulent basis by playing fraud with the respondent-authorities, no regular departmental proceeding is required. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association & Ors. [(1994) 2 SCC 204] and submits that in view of the said judgment, the person, who have come with back door should also go by same door. Learned counsel further argues that fraud vitiates everything. Apparently, fraud was committed by the petitioner and as such, a show-cause notice was issued to him and replying being found unsatisfactory, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. There is no illegality or infirmity in the cancellation of appointment, which has been obtained on fraudulent basis.

¶22

6. Be that as it may, having gone through the documents brought on record and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. Petitioner has obtained 54.16 marks and cut-off marks in SC category was fixed at 54.49 but petitioner has wrongly mentioned that he has obtained 56.61 marks and on that very basis, obtained the appointment. It is settled principle of law that when appointment has been obtained by way of fraud, the same does not invite any regular proceeding or principle

¶23

¶24

of natural justice is not attracted in the case of fraud. However, petitioner was given a show-cause notice, to which he replied and the same being found unsatisfactory, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. As such, action of the respondent-State in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is fully justified.

¶25

7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.

¶26

kunal/-

Srikant Das v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikant Das v. Education

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

Ramji Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of School Eduation and Literacy Development

Payal Raj Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Baju Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jha And Ors. Vs Finance

Misbahul Hasan Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation

Kailash Thakur Vs Managing Director Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd.