The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.191 of 2021 ---- Gurupad Pramanik son of Late Shambhu Pramanik, R/o Village Khudibera, PO PS Kandra, District Saraikella Kharswan. Appellant … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Home Jail and Disaster Management having Office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajyabhasha Department, having Office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. Jharkhand Armed Police, through its Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at Forest Officers’ Colony, Doranda, Ranchi. 4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, Ranchi. 5. Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, Ranchi. 6. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, Ranchi. Respondents … ---- CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant: For the Respondents: Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP IV Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate ---- 7/ 10.07.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
O R D E R 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent at the instance of the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) no.2234 of 2018 is directed against the judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2234 of 2018, whereby his writ petition was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner- appellant submits that in the writ petition the petitioner had approached the Court seeking appointment to the post of Constable in respect of District of East Singhbhum on the ground that though in his category, the cutoff marks was only 110, yet he scored much more, i.e., 139, but he was not appointed for the reasons best known to respondents. As per him, in the counter affidavit, the respondents came up with a different story challenging the genuineness of the petitioner and the application form. As per him, even in the grounds taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, it would be manifest that it is the -: 2 :- respondents, who have committed the illegality by editing the application form thus, depriving the petitioner of his valuable right of being selected. As per the petitioner, he had initially, correctly, filled up the application form, but the form, which the respondents are relying upon in support of their contention that the petitioner is an imposter, would clearly suggest that the same has been tampered with after the last date of submission fixed by the authority. The petitioner submitted that from the document it is clear that the application fee was deposited by the petitioner just before the last date, i.e., on 29th September, 2015, whereas the Annexure ‘A’, which is the photocopy of the computer printout of the filled up form, which the respondents are relying upon to be the original form filled up by the petitioner, would suggest that the same was edited on 05.10.2015, when the last date of submission was 30.09.2015. No form could have been edited beyond the last date, thus, the form which the respondents are relying upon to have been filled up by the petitioner, is a manufactured document at the instance of the respondents to deprive the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the sole question before the learned Single Judge would have been whether the person obtaining lesser marks than the petitioner could have been appointed or not, but the learned Single Judge travelled beyond the issue in holding that the application form submitted by the petitioner appears to be forged, thus, he is not entitled for any relief, even if he has obtained more marks than the cutoff marks in his category. He, thus, prays to allow this appeal. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that the petitioner had filled his online application wherein all the details including the name of his parents, Aadhaar Number and other measurements were mentioned. As per the respondents the printout of the form, which the petitioner is relying upon, is in fact a manufactured document, thus, there is every possibility that the petitioner is an imposter. He submits that there is huge discrepancy in the form maintained by the respondents and the form which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition. When the petitioner produced the original documents before the authorities it was detected that the same did not match with the entries made in the online application maintained by the respondents. Thus, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 4. An advertisement was published to fill up the post of Constable in the year 2015 being advertisement No.4 of 2015. The petitioner filled up the -: 3 :- online form on the official portal. He claimed himself to be in category EBC I. As per him, he filled up the form on 29.09.2015 and the last date was 30.09.2015. When he received the Admit Card, he found that his address was incorrectly mentioned there. He prayed for rectification of his address, mentioned in the Admit Card, but, no action was taken. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and he was declared successful. He was called for interview, but this time also in the said Admit Card the address was also wrongly mentioned. He cleared the mains and also appeared in the Medical and Physical Test. After conclusion of the process, he could come to know that he has cleared all the tests and secured 139 marks, which is more than the cutoff marks, but he was not offered appointment. Be it mentioned that the cutoff marks in his category was 110. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, he had filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2234 of 2018. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, taking a plea that during verification of documents, it was detected that the name of the petitioner, though was Gurupad Pramanik, yet in the form which he had submitted, he had declared his father’s name as Ramesh Mahato and mother’s name as Vinota Devi and the Aadhaar Number was 4082xxxx144, (I am deliberately withholding some portion of the Aadhaar Number for the sake of privacy). His height was mentioned as 182 c.m. and his chest was 83 c.m. The said form also bears the photograph of the petitioner with his signature and thumb impression. Thus, the respondents concluded that there is huge discrepancy in the form and the documents submitted, thus they doubted the genuineness. The petitioner filed a photocopy of the form, which according to him, he had taken a printout at the time of filling up the form, which suggests that his father’s name is late Shambhu Pramanik and mother’s name is Ahilya Devi and Aadhaar Number is 444xxxx448. As per the petitioner, aforesaid form is the genuine one, which he had filled up online and had received printout of the same. 5. Learned Single Judge, considering the claim of the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the information, which the petitioner submitted in the online application form was different from the documents produced by him at the time of document verification, thus, the candidature of the petitioner was correctly not accepted by the respondents. Learned Single Judge also took into consideration that as per Clause 15 of the advertisement, entire responsibility of filling up of the form and the information furnished has to be -: 4 :- borne by the petitioner, thus, as there was a difference, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. 6. After hearing the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid impugned order. We find that the petitioner claimed that he had correctly filled up the online form mentioning his father’s name as Shambhu Pramanik and mother’s name as Ahilya Devi, giving his correct Aadhaar Number and other details, but, on query, counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant submits that the printout which he had taken and is relying upon to be genuine, does not bear the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner. It is admitted by the parties that it was mandated vide the advertisement that the thumb impression and signature should be uploaded along with the form. The form, which, according to the respondents, the writ petitioner had submitted, mentions the name of the father of the petitioner as Ramesh Mahato and mother’s name as Vinota Devi. Aadhaar Number is different, though the application number in both the applications are same. Another glaring aspect is that the form, which the respondents have relied upon, not only bears the photograph of the petitioner, but also bears his signature and thumb impression. The respondents denied the existence of the printout of the form, which the petitioner has relied upon. Thus, when the testimonials of the petitioner were verified, discrepancy was found between the documents and the form, which the petitioner had filled up and was maintained by the respondents, thus, his case was rejected. 7. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the form, which the petitioner had filled up and is at Annexure 2 is the original and the genuine form, and not those relied upon by the respondents. As per him, the same has been tampered with as in the said form it has been mentioned that the said form was edited on 05.10.2015, i.e., after the last date. He submitted that the said edit was executed by the respondents. 8. After going through the said form, which is a photocopy, we find that it is a fact that the form was edited on 05.10.2015, but it is not possible to arrive at a finding while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to who had edited the same. If at all someone has edited this electronic document, same is a matter of evidence. 9. The claim of the petitioner involves several complicated disputed question of facts as there are two documents, i.e., two sets of forms, one of -: 5 :- which each of the parties are claiming to be genuine. The information about the petitioner in both the forms are different. Further, one of the form, which the petitioner is relying upon, does not contain his signature nor thumb impression. Further, all these are electronic evidence, which needs proper proof for the petitioner to succeed. This serious disputed question of fact as to which document is genuine and if at all the document has been tampered with (as per the petitioner), at which end it has been done so, by using which computer, cannot be decided in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact is that there was discrepancy in the form maintained by the respondents with the document the petitioner provided, thus, his candidature was not accepted. 10. The learned Single Judge, thus, has correctly dismissed the writ petition. We also do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, but, considering the points raised by the petitioner, we give him liberty to file a suit before an appropriate Court of Civil Jurisdiction where the petitioner can lead evidence in support of his claim. If such suit is filed by the petitioner, the same should be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge or by this Court in this Letters Patent Appeal. 11. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)