Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of H.p. & Ors

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of H.p. & Ors

(High Court Of Himachal Pradesh)

CWPOA No. 7396 of 2019. | 31-08-2023

1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive relief:-

“a. That the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2016 (Annexure A-11) may be quashed and set aside and applicant may kindly be allowed to work as Clerk at GSSS Kungrat or in alternate compassionate appointment of applicant may kindly be considered on basis of Matric certificate initially at the time of his appointment and thereafter for promotion as and when applicant has qualified +2 examination from H.P. Board of School Education.”

2. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk on contract basis under Kith and Kin Policy vide office order dated 13.11.2009. The essential education qualification for the post of Clerk as per the prevalent R & P Rules was that a candidate should have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent from a recognized board/university. Petitioner had produced a certificate issued by National Open School evidencing the passing of plus two examination by him under roll number 20224012 in May, 2002. On verification of the plus two certificate submitted by the petitioner, it was found to be fake. Consequently, the petitioner was issued show cause notice, as to why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply, however, the same was not found satisfactory and the services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dated 02.05.2016.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his certificate showing him plus two pass was genuine as he had appeared in the examination held by the National Open School and his examination center was J.R. Model School, Mehatpur. It is submitted that the verification report relied upon by respondent No.2 for terminating the services of petitioner was not correct. It is further contended that the petitioner had subsequently passed plus two examinations conducted by Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in March, 2015 and on such basis, he should be held entitled to continue his services.

5. The respondents have seriously contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 National Open School has specifically stated in its reply that the certificate produced by the petitioner showing him plus two pass was verified by the competent authority more than once. No data was found which could authenticate the factum of the petitioner having passed the plus two examination from National Open School under roll number 20224012. To similar effect is the stand taken by respondents No.1 to 3.

6. The stands taken by respondents more particularly by respondent No.4 cannot be ignored or falsified for the reasons, firstly, that the respondents have no axe to grind against the petitioners, secondly, the petitioner has not been able to prove or place on record any material to show that the certificate produced by him was genuine. Thirdly, there is no allegations of malafide against the respondents and lastly the conduct of the petitioner himself in again appearing in plus two examinations held by Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in 2015 is sufficient to draw an adverse inference against him.

7. No doubt, the appointment of petitioner was under kith and kin policy, but the essential qualification required for the post as per the R&P Rules cannot be ignored. The fairness in public employment should be the hallmark. Petitioner had obtained the appointment by not only suppressing the material fact, but also indulging in a conduct which can be said to be fraudulent. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner.

8. It is also not a case where the principles of natural justice were not applied. Petitioner was issued a notice to show cause against his proposed termination. The reply filed by the petitioner was rightly found to be unsatisfactory as no tangible material was placed on record by the petitioner to justify his grounds.

9. In result, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

Advocate List

  • Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

  • Mr. Gautam Sood, Dy. A.G. & Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G. Mr. Pradeep K. Sharma, Advocate.

Bench
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya
Eq Citations
  • 2023 LabIC 4582
  • LQ/HimHC/2023/2073
Head Note

Education and Universities — Employment — Appointment — Appointment under kith and kin policy — Validity of appointment — Appointment of petitioner as Clerk on contract basis under kith and kin policy — Essential education qualification for post of Clerk as per prevalent R&P Rules was that candidate should have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent from a recognized board/university — Petitioner had produced a certificate issued by National Open School evidencing passing of plus two examination by him under roll number 20224012 in May, 2002 — On verification of plus two certificate submitted by petitioner, it was found to be fake — Consequently, petitioner was issued show cause notice, as to why his services should not be terminated — Petitioner submitted a detailed reply, however, the same was not found satisfactory and services of petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dt. 02.05.2016 — Held, appointment of petitioner was under kith and kin policy, but essential qualification required for post as per R&P Rules cannot be ignored — Petitioner had obtained appointment by not only suppressing material fact, but also indulging in a conduct which can be said to be fraudulent — No fault can be found with impugned order of termination of services of petitioner — It is also not a case where principles of natural justice were not applied — Petitioner was issued a notice to show cause against his proposed termination — Reply filed by petitioner was rightly found to be unsatisfactory as no tangible material was placed on record by petitioner to justify his grounds — R&P Rules, 2009 — Para 2 (Paras 2, 6, 7 and 8)