Dismissed

Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2010LPA/143/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special leave petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal filed by an appellant seeking relief against his removal from service. The appellant, belonging to the general category, had obtained a position reserved for backward classes through fraud. The Single Judge upheld the removal and directed an inquiry. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the fraudu

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; removal from service upheld.

Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

LPA No.143 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2010

Satbir Singh

-----Appellant

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶7

-----Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶9

Present:Mr. Greesh Agnihotri, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

¶11

This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of removal from service on the ground that though he belonged to general category, he was given appointment to a post reserved for backward class. It is undisputed that the appellant belongs to general category and that the advertisement was for a post reserved for backward class category. The appellant was appointed to the said post and continued to work for 26 years. The impugned order dated 25.8.2008 is to the effect that the recommendation for appointment was made on the understanding that the petitioner belonged to Backward class category. It came to notice later that the appointment was fraudulently captured by the appellant who belonged to general category. Show Cause Notice was given to the appellant and after considering his reply, it was held that the appellant never applied for the post meant for reserved category but managed to procure letter of appointment by impersonating himself to be person of the same name who belonged to Backward class category. Learned Single Judge

¶12

LPA No.143 of 2010 (O&M)

¶13

¶14

upheld the order of removal from service and directed that enquiry be held to find out the person responsible for wrongful induction of the appellant into government service.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that he did not make any misrepresentation.

¶17

We are unable to accept this submission. The fact remains that the appellant did not belong to the reserved category for which the post was advertised and selection made. The appellant was duly given opportunity of being heard by way of show cause notice. The appointment procured or made fraudulently in violation of law could be annulled and mere fact that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the appellant was being removed will not make qualitative difference to the said order. In view of admitted fact that the appellant belongs to the general category and the post for which he was appointed was for reserved backward class category, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.

¶18

The appeal is dismissed.

¶19

(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge

¶20

May 6, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge

Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaheed Udham Singh Kamboj Coop. Tpt. Society Vs Punjab St. Grain Procurement Corpn. Ltd. & Ors.

Dr.Satish Kant etc. Vs Punjab State etc.

Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Vs Ludhiana Transprot Co.Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagdish Prashad and Anr. Vs U.H.B.V.N.L. and Ors.

Gulab Rai Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors.