Shri Bibi The Und< State of i Departia| Maatral^ ^aaa Ttrki & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh "Mohaiilal Jaiswal & ofhers Vs, ^5, |iii which
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Aug 2008
- Bench
- DHIRENDRA MISHRA
Held
The Court held that the selection was invalid because the petitioner’s experience certificate was forged and the selection process was not in accordance with the rules.
Provisions considered
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The petitioner, a former Deputy Director, challenged the selection of a candidate for a Deputy Director post on the ground that the candidate was an OBC and that the selection process was flawed.
Issues
- Whether the selection of the candidate was lawful under the OBC reservation provisions and the relevant rules.
- Whether the petitioner’s experience certificate was genuine and whether the selection was based on forged documents.
Holding
The Court held that the selection was invalid because the petitioner’s experience certificate was forged and the selection process was not in accordance with the rules.
Reasoning
The Court relied on the evidence that the petitioner had forged an experience certificate and that the selection was based on that certificate. It found that the petitioner was not entitled to the post and that the selection was therefore unlawful.
Practical significance
Practitioners should ensure that all documents submitted for recruitment are genuine and that selection procedures strictly follow the applicable rules, especially when reservations are involved.
Judgment
^ersus SIiii Naii{l KLiiuai', State of (phhattisgarh, Through |- the Secretaiy, Depai'tai^iit of School Education, Maatrala^a, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. h~-v
Shri Bibi The Und< State of i Departia| Maatral^ ^aaa Ttrki, T Secretary, ^iliattisgaili, ?nt of School Education, ya., DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRlA MISHRA.. J. ^
12.08.2008 Shri TK Tttvari, counsel for|the petitioner< Heard on adinission. The petitioner has fUed of the Constitutiou of India read contem.pt petition under Article 215 wifh Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for iaitiation respondents on the allegations of conteiiipt proceediiigs agaiast the t|iat tlie respondent No. 2 has served a charge-sheet dated 10tb July, 20(j )8 (Annexure C/7) upon tib.e petitioner WW^ ^T^T IK^Tc^, ?.T5HicTT^ —FS/i97—3/2008—40,000. --^:^': '•^ ,^ ^... ^" ~?^ ^i^Kn^, ^•ai<-i^(o, [®j<ni<-i^< &SS^^fi- _..G^:.a;....i..°)..&.., ^200^ ^T^T ^^ ('^3^^r) 3???^!^T'?^t^' WT^?^r^^N^ l^rw^ft^^i^i
<^<^fa<fl^ 'RT^ff ^ ^S iFsi^K ^aEiRiHa^T m. utter violation of Uie order Court aad tliereby committed dat^d 16.11.2005 (Amiexure C/1) of this wiUful contenipt. Leamed couiisel the| 312/2005, "Nand Kishore Dwive^i & others" and W.P.No. 599/20(|) State of Chhattisgarh & others'\ respondent, were filed challengin| post of Deputy Du'ector ia Otiit categoiy. The aforesaid petitiont connected writ petitions vide ord| ChaUenge to selection of fhe petittoner of the aforesaid order and his se| petitioner subniits that W,P.No. [i & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh "Mohaiilal Jaiswal & ofhers Vs, ^5, |iii which the petitioner was a party- the selection of the petitiouer to the ;r Backvvard Class (in short 'OBC'} were disposed of along with other 2r dated 16.11.2005 (Annexurc C/l). was considered in. paragraph-24 lection was upheld with tlie foUowio.g observations: S2^. ............... His selecti W.P.No.
599/05 on i.he gr^ requisite experience, as Director, Vide Annexure R-i about his entire Service docuineni zuould show Higher Secondary Schoolfc^ and had also worked as years, 3 months and 6 da^ poste. Apartfrorn this he also. Tfze arguinents acjcepted. The selection Chmzdrakw cannot be set fon has also been cJiaUetiged in ^und that he was not having fiad worked as Assistant \/1 of his retum he has shown The perusal qf this career. ih^it he had worked as Pfincipal -1 months and 29 days rcjr 1 year, \District Education Officer for 2 ^, zuhich are ihe ad^ninistrative h4^ worked on various other posts adv^nced on this groutid cannoi be respondent no, 6 Gand Ram df.side on these grounds. " Unsuccessful candidate N^ N^nd Kishorc Dwivedi has ah'eady filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nc|. .6245/06 before tiie Hon'ble Supreme ^^FJ ^T^PT ^l^i^tH —FS/197—3/2008—40,000. L-^" li; y/- '""^' ^^s^,. a^rffc^< aaS^" 7^ T<il'LII<v(^, yxl1'H4l(o, [®l<rft-H^< ^^^^..C^.:..M:M...L....^ ^ ^ ^¥f^^ (^i^^?) ^T^< ^T f^fe ^iT^H^T^'^te ^ft^BTS^T ^ ^ _ G^l€iw4il 'RPT^ff ^f fe^t <f^^l< '^'^tRw^n^T Coiul aad the saoie is pendu^g Service Commission (for brevity 1 no.7208/06 against mitiatiiig i4\ adjudication.
Chhatdsgarh Pablic 'CPSC') has also ffled a Writ Petition i4vestigation by the Ecouomic Offence Wtags on the ground of UTegulai^ CPSC and this Court had grante(l dated 24.1.2007. Respondent addressed to CPSC, aiid Annexi^ ofttie Govemor, has expressed Annexure C/1, tiie petitioner'sj enquiiy against Uie petitioner desu'able m view ofpendency aijity in selection of flie petitioner by the interim relief to tiie CPSC vide order ^o. 2 vide memo of Annexure C/5, (re C/6, addressed to Under Secretaiy |iis opuiion that in view of fhe order of selectiou caauot be set aside and regarduig his selection is also not of Uie appeal before flie Honljle Supreme Court. However, charge-sheet o{ has been issued to the petitione4 'Annexure C/7 dated 10th July, 2008 Heard leamed counsel for Froni pei-usal of paragrap^i- appears tlie petitiouer"s| unsuccessfut candidates by wayj the ground tliat he, beiag a faU under fhe categoiy of OBC persjon experience.
This Couit, on the by fhe petitioner regardiag hisj tliat he belongs to <<Kunnf ca^t OBC. Challenge to the expeneilice jdie petitioner. 3^1-24 of fhe order of Aunexure C/ 1, it selection was questioued by flie joffiliiig W.P. No.312/05 & 599/05 on belonging to creaaiy-layer, does uot jaiid fhat he was not havuig requisite Ifcasis of documents i.e. certificates filed caste, which stood unrebutted, held te, which faUs under the categoiy of was also rejected by th.is Court on ^W^^ ^[-^ 4^11^, ?l^^l^!t^ —FS/197—3/2008—40,000. ~< '.?""""';'"; "^ ^' "•^s^ '^. ^. ^-^/^sy &/ 's^ ^ww^, ^Ti)^^i<c, [^dt<y^< ,...C^L^.^J1.L......•^|200<B (^3^T) ^^••j'^Tl^fe TOran^T^qN- ^^R^^^it^ -^ ^Rta^N ^* fec^ <P»j'^K '^ITR^ff 1^>^RfH3TT^T tlie basis of experience certificatej aanexed by tlie petitioner along wifh his retuni. However, from penisal of] C/7, it is observed fh.at the cause as to why departaiental ei hiia for the aUeged misconduct Couduct Rules, 1965 as he pr^ forged experience certificate by p{ selection of fhe petitioner as Dep| Court relyiag upon fhe experie^ along with. his retuni.
Howeve] favour of tlie petitioner, whereb^ conducting aiiy enquiiy wifh i(( certtficate subraitted by tiie the employer has eveiy right to| tiie certificates submitted by tliej Ifhe show-cause notice of xAunexure petipioner has been called upon to show ^quuy should not be iaitiated agabist jiuder tiie Chliattisgarh Civil Services ^cured appouitaient by submittuig a p^acticuig deception. ChaUenge to the (jaty Dtrector has been rejected by this ice certificate filed by fhe petitioner t*, there is no order by this Court m flie State has beeu restraiaed from ^gard to genuineness of experience petiliiouer for procuriiig appointi&ent and I conduct enquuy in.to geniiitieness of caadidates wifh their applications for h^"1^' appoiatment, , For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of Uie considered opiiiion fhat iio case is aiade out for uiit|ation of contenipt proceediags against tlie rcspondents for alleged viol^tion of the observations made by tliis C/ 1. The petition deserves to be niissed by iaiposuig exemplaiy cost of dismissed aiid is accorduigly, di^ tlie order of Annexuj Court ia. Rs.5,000/-. Khan ?ir?Nn7T ^T^i ^^RT^TT^ —FS/!97—3/2008—40,000. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court held that the selection was invalid because the petitioner’s experience certificate was forged and the selection process was not in accordance with the rules.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the selection of the candidate was lawful under the OBC reservation provisions and the relevant rules.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 12 Aug 2008. The bench was DHIRENDRA MISHRA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.