V.Manivasagam v. District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 12.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.P.No.34129 of 2003andWPMP No.41377 of 2003andWVMP No.53 of 2004V.Manivasagam .. Petitioner Versus1. The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam.3. The Tahsildar, Papanasam.4. K.Govindan5. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India toissue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records of the fifth respondentin O.A.No.3914 of 1993 dated 22.09.2003 and quash the same.For petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Dhandapani,Spl.G.P. For R4 : Mr.M.Christopher https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the StateAdministrative Tribunal dated 22.09.2003 passed in O.A.No.3914 of 1993. 2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that thepetitioner and the fourth respondent applied for the post of VillageAssistant of Neithalur Village, Papanasam Taluk. The petitioner came tobe appointed for the said post by an order of appointment dated29.07.1991. The order of appointment stated that the petitioner hadpassed tenth standard and that previously he had temporarily worked as anAssistant, apart from the fact that he was living in that village itself.On the above grounds, the appointment of the petitioner was preferred.Aggrieved against the order of appointment issued to the petitioner, thefourth respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Thesecond respondent, after considering the appeal and after hearing thepetitioner held that the petitioner attained the age of 21 years only on09.04.1991 and therefore, his past temporary experience when he was belowthe minimum age cannot be taken into account. 3. As far as his educational qualification was concerned, the secondrespondent held that he did not pass tenth standard since in the Schoolcertificate itself it is mentioned that he left the school while doing histenth standard. That apart, it was held that since the petitionersuppressed the pendency of a criminal case at the time when he made theapplication in 17.07.1991, he was disqualified from being considered forappointment to the post of Village Assistant, even though the saidcriminal case in C.C.No.497 of 1991 ended in the acquittal of thepetitioner. While setting aside the order of appointment, the secondrespondent appointed the fourth respondent herein. Aggrieved against theorder of the second respondent dated 20.02.1993, the petitioner preferreda revision before the first respondent. The first respondent took note ofthe fact that the petitioner himself having produced the TransferCertificate wherein it is specifically mentioned that he left the schoolwhile doing his tenth standard, the reference in the appointment order tothe effect that he had passed tenth standard was the mistake of theTahsildar for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. 4. As far as the criminal case was concerned, the first respondentaccepted the stand of the petitioner that as on the date when he appliedfor the post, no criminal case was pending and that the summons in thecriminal case itself was issued to him after the issuance of theappointment order. The first respondent therefore held that there was nosuppression of any material fact by the petitioner as concluded by thesecond respondent. Since the petitioner was a native of Neithalur Village https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ itself, the first respondent by order dated 07.05.1993 held that thepetitioner's appointment made by the Tahsildar on 29.07.1991 was justifiedand so saying, the order of the second respondent was set aside. Thefourth respondent herein preferred O.A.No.3914 of 1993 challenging thesaid order of the first respondent. The Tribunal agreed with the view ofthe second respondent and held that the appointment order issued to thepetitioner is bound to be set aside. The Original Application was allowedand the appointment of the petitioner was set aside by the Tribunal.Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writpetition.5. Mr.G.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took usthrough the Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner by the School insupport of his stand, that in the said Certificate in column No.10 whichspecifically mentions as to the class in which the concerned student wasstudying at the time when the Transfer Certificate was issued, wherein itis stated that the petitioner was doing his tenth standard at that pointof time. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended thatwhen the petitioner produced the Certificate which has also been referredto by the second respondent in his order, there was no reason for thepetitioner to claim that he passed tenth standard for the purpose ofsecuring the appointment. 6. As far as the criminal case is concerned, the learned counselbrought to our notice the summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate No.II,Thanjavur in C.C.No.497 of 1991 which was dated 06.08.1991. The saidsummons specifically state that the petitioner was charged under Sections147 and 323 I.P.C. and that he should appear before the Court at 10 a.m.on 23.08.1991. The date of the summons itself was 06.08.1991. Thelearned counsel therefore contended that as on 29.07.1991 the petitionerwas not aware of any criminal proceedings alleged to have been lodgedagainst him by Tmt.Sowbagyavathi by way of a private complaint. Thelearned counsel would therefore contend that the conclusion of the firstrespondent by accepting the above material while setting aside the orderof the second respondent did not call for any interference and therefore,the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. As against the said statement, Mr.Christopher, learned counselappearing for the fourth respondent would contend that prior to theissuance of the summons dated 06.08.1991, the petitioner would havedefinitely been called by the police for an enquiry in pursuance of thecomplaint made by Smt.Sowbagyavathi and therefore, the petitioner ought tohave referred to the same when he made the application on 17.07.1991. Thelearned counsel then contended that when the second respondent has made aspecific finding that the petitioner claimed himself to have passed tenthstandard, it should be held that such a representation was a clearmisrepresentation of fact and therefore, on both the grounds thecancellation of the order of appointment was justified and the same shouldnot be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader referred to thecounter affidavit filed by the first respondent and contended that boththe grounds on which the second respondent set aside the order ofappointment of the petitioner is without any basis and therefore, theorder of appointment issued to the petitioner and confirmed by the firstrespondent in his order dated 07.05.1993 should be restored. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and ona perusal of the material papers placed before us, we are convinced thatthe order of appointment issued to the petitioner in the order dated29.07.1991 did not call for any interference. As rightly contended by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, when the Transfer Certificate made itclear that the petitioner was doing his tenth standard at the time when heleft the School and when the Certificate was very much on record at thetime of issuance of order of appointment dated 29.07.1991, the secondrespondent was not justified in making a contrary statement that thepetitioner claimed himself to have passed tenth standard. For making sucha statement there was no acceptable evidence before the second respondent.There was no other document other than the Transfer Certificate issued bythe School or any oral statement said to have been made before any otherauthority to the effect that the petitioner had passed tenth standard andhe claimed as such for the purpose of securing the appointment to the postof Village Assistant. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the secondrespondent on that score was rightly interfered with by the firstrespondent in his order dated 07.05.1993. 10. Similarly, as regards the criminal complaint which was lodgedagainst the petitioner, the summons itself make it very clear that it wasissued only on 06.08.1991. Even assuming for the sake of argument thatthe petitioner was called by the Police to the Station on any date priorto 06.08.1991, in the first place, there is nothing on record to show thathe was called on any particular date prior to the issuance of theappointment order dated 22.07.1991. In any case, merely because a personwas called to the Police Station for holding some enquiry, that by itselfcannot be taken to have resulted in any criminal case having beenregistered against him and therefore, there was a bounden duty on theperson concerned to disclose the said fact in his application forappointment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the nonintimation about the criminal case in his application dated 17.07.1991.As on that day or even prior to 29.07.1991, no criminal case was pendingagainst him in order to state that there was any suppression of thependency of any such criminal case preferred against him. Therefore, thesaid factor cannot also be put against the petitioner in order tointerfere with the order of appointment issued to him.11. As far as the age factor namely that as on 09.04.1991 only heattained the age of 21 years and therefore, any experience said to havebeen gained by him prior to that date cannot be taken into account, we https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hold that even if the said experience is eschewed from consideration,inasmuch as the petitioner was fully qualified and there was no otherdisqualification suffered by him, the order of appointment dated29.07.1991 cannot be interfered with. Therefore, looked at from anyangle, we are convinced that the order of the first respondent dated07.05.1993 was perfectly justified in restoring the order of appointmentissued to the petitioner on 29.07.1991. The Tribunal, unfortunatelyfailed to appreciate the relevant documents before reaching its conclusionabout suppression of fact and alleged misrepresentation against thepetitioner. We are therefore obliged to interfere with the order of theTribunal. The writ petition stands allowed. The order of appointment ofthe petitioner dated 29.07.1991 is therefore confirmed. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gmsTo 1. The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam.3. The Tahsildar, Papanasam.4. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104.+ 1 CC To Mr. M.Christopher, Advocate SR NO.42681+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 42710 W.P.No.34129 of 2003klt[co]gp/23.7.