The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2713 of 2021 --- Pradeep Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Baijnath Yadav, resident of village-Sabladih, P.O.-Atka, P.S.- Bishungarh, Dist.- Hazaribagh ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist.- Hazaribagh. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. -Giridih, Dist.- Giridih. .....Respondents CORAM -- : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Pinky Tiwari, A.C to A.G -- 07/14.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to give appointment to this petitioner on the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement bearing Advertisement no. 01/2004. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards at Annexure-10 and submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for the same set relief and this Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 had discussed each and every aspect of the matter and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority-respondent no.4, to pass a fresh order after discussing each and every ground raised by the petitioner in the second show-cause notice and pass a fresh order. For brevity paras 6 & 7 is quoted hereinbelow: 1 that the post of Constable, as per 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears the minimum qualification required for the appointment on advertisement of 2004, was 7th standard pass. Further, from the said advertisement it also transpires that there was no weightage for any higher qualification. As such, submitting a false certificate of Intermediate pass would not have otherwise helped the appointment. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the pass certificate of matriculation or the 7th pass certificate was forged; rather, it is a specific case of the respondents that the certificate submitted by the petitioner, in which he was shown as intermediate pass, is found forged on the basis of the report sent by the Bihar Intermediate Examination Board. the petitioner in getting From records it also appears that the petitioner had taken specific stand that he was bona-fide and he had no knowledge that the relevant certificate was forged. He has also taken a specific stand that only by submitting 7th pass and 10th pass certificate, he could have easily procured the job, but since as per his knowledge, he was intermediate pass, he had submitted the intermediate pass certificate. This specific stand of the petitioner was neither considered in the Enquiry Report nor by the Disciplinary Authority. In this view of the matter, I hold the order of the Disciplinary Authority as a non-speaking one, being passed without discussing the grounds taken by the petitioner. In the case of KRANTI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Versus MASOOD AHMED KHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, at Para 47, certain guidelines have been mentioned. Relevant para of the said decision is quoted as under: “47. (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c ) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds extraneous and considerations. disregarding by (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been for objectively considered. This important is 2 sustaining the litigants’ faith in justice delivery system (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the is faithful to the doctrine of person deciding precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. the said requirement (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, EHRR, at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of ‘adequate and Human Rights which requires, judicial intelligent reasons must be given for decisions’. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ‘due process.” for development of It further transpires from record that the Appellate authority had considered the grounds taken by the petitioner. However, in Paragraph No. 41 of the decision in ORYX FISHERIES (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “41. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order.” Admittedly, the ground with respect to criteria in getting the job was taken by the petitioner right from the very beginning, but for the reason best known the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, the same was not considered and the order of dismissal was passed. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ORYX FISHERIES (Supra), absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the impugned Order dated 14.04.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 4) and Order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.3) are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority-Respondent No.4, to pass a fresh order after discussing each and every ground/contention raised by the petitioner in his second show cause notice and pass a fresh order. The entire exercise must be complete within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be reinstated in service.” 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this order, a fresh order has been passed, wherein a new ground has been taken in the impugned order that seven marks were fixed for intermediate qualified students; whereas the case of the respondent is that the petitioner had filed a fake intermediate certificate. He further submits that as per Clause-10 of the Notification no. 3300 dated 12.11.2001, it has been stipulated that if after the advertisement the number of selected candidates is more than the number of seats; then only the question of weightage will arise. He contended that the document annexed by the respondent clarifies that the number of vacancies were 739; however, the number of successful candidates was 464 only; as such there is no question of weightage of marks for intermediate. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Pinky Tiwari, representing the respondent State submits that earlier writ application was remitted back to take a fresh decision after giving second show-cause notice and the said case was allowed on technical ground and further now there is no procedural irregularity and the order has been passed in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. She further submits that 11th pass certificate, though not required, but the petitioner had submitted that certificate with some ulterior motive; as such the grounds / finding given by the disciplinary authority in accordance with. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for the same set of 4 relief and this Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 had remitted the case to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after discussing each and every ground raised by the petitioner in the second show-cause notice. On the question of forged intermediate certificate; there was a specific finding in the earlier order that “Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the pass certificate of matriculation or the 7th pass certificate was forged ............................………… From records it also appears that the petitioner had taken specific stand that he was bona-fide and he had no knowledge that the relevant certificate was forged. He has also taken a specific stand that only by submitting 7th pass and 10th pass certificate, he could have easily procured the job, but since as per his knowledge, he was intermediate pass, he had submitted the intermediate pass certificate. This specific stand of the petitioner was neither considered in the Enquiry Report nor by the Disciplinary Authority……….” With the aforesaid finding, the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary authority. 7. It further transpires that a fresh order has been passed, wherein a new ground has been taken in the impugned order that seven marks were fixed for intermediate qualified students; whereas the case of the respondent was that the petitioner had filed a fake intermediate certificate. Thus, it is evident that the Respondents have not considered the specific reply of the petitioner that the intermediate certificate was not at all necessary and that could have been easily ignored in case of any confusion. However, in the fresh impugned order they took a new ground that seven marks were fixed for the intermediate certificate. As a matter of fact, the stand of the petitioner from the very beginning is that the intermediate certificate was not at all necessary and that could have been easily ignored in case of any confusion and after considering all these aspect, this Court in his order referred to hereinabove remitted 5 the case to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order. After perusing the impugned order it is crystal clear that the ground of the petitioner taken in the reply to show cause was not answered even in the fresh order after remand; rather a new ground has been taken that seven marks were fixed for intermediate certificate. 8. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention here that as per Clause-10 of the Notification no. 3300 dated 12.11.2001, it has been stipulated that if after the advertisement the number of selected candidates is more than the number of seats; only then, the question of weightage will arise. From the document annexed by the respondent themselves clarifies that the number of vacancies were 739; however, the number of successful candidates were 464 only; as such, there was no question of weightage of marks for intermediate certificate. Though, Ms. Pinky Tiwari representing the respondents contended that 12th pass certificate, though not required, but the petitioner had submitted that certificate with some ulterior motive. However, no such motive has been demonstrated by the Respondents either in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit. As stated hereinabove, from the documents annexed by the respondent themselves clarifies that the number of vacancies were 739; however, the number of successful candidates were 464 only. Thus, it is inferred that the seats were vacant. 9. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 issued under memo no.923 dated 20.03.2021, is hereby, quashed 6 and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed give appointment to this petitioner on the post of Constable in connection with the advertisement bearing Advertisement no. 01/2004 as early as possible, but not later than a period of 8 weeks. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any monetary benefit and claim parity with the candidates of the said batch and shall be kept at the bottom of the said batch of candidates who were appointed earlier vide Advertisement no. 01/2004. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. jk (Deepak Roshan, J.) 7