The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 2025:JHHC:38704 W.P.(S) No. 7473 of 2025 ---- Pawan Kumar Gupta, S/o Shivnandan Saw, Resident Of Village- Banahappa, P.O-Banahappa, P.S- Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. -versus- … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, At Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner -cum-District Programme Coordinator, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District-Hazaribagh. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District-Hazaribagh. 5. The Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Programme Coordinator, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District-Ranchi. … Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate Mr. Kazi Asif Iqubal, Advocate : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III ---- 03/ 23.12.2025 Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For quashing of the order passed vide memo no. 2415 dated 21.11.2025 (Anx-10) issued by respondent no.3 whereby and where under the services of the petitioner from the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak under Manrega Scheme has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has submitted false affidavit which is in violation of Clause 12 (Cha) of the advertisement. termination order dated (ii) Further Upon quashing 21.11.2025 issue a direction upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak in the district of Hazaribagh along with all consequential benefits from the date of his termination.” the 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, pursuant to the letter of appointment vide Memo No. 1439 dated 12.08.2024, was working on the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak, Hazaribagh since 16.08.2024. While discharging his duty, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 05.03.2025 asking his reply on the point that the petitioner had applied in more than 01 districts and had given false affidavit which was in violation of MGNREGA Scheme and Advertisement wherein there is a provision to apply for a post in only 1 district. Irrespective of the petitioner giving his reply in the stipulated time, the respondent authorities passed an 1 order of termination vide memo No. 2415 dated 21.11.2025, on the ground of submission of false affidavit and having applied for the same post in different districts which is in violation of the terms of the advertisement. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the petitioner had applied for the same post in the district of Ranchi but never went for the document verification or submitted any hard copy of his documents before the authorities in Ranchi. The learned counsel submits that the notification for appointment in the district of Ranchi was issued on 19.10.2023, whereas the last date for submission of the application form in the district of Hazaribagh was 18.09.2023, which was much prior and further the petitioner has uploaded his affidavit in the website of Hazaribagh on 09.09.2023, before the last date of submission of application which was 18.09.2023. He submits that his application for Hazaribagh was prior in time when there was no application for Ranchi. Thus, there cannot be any false affidavit while filing his application for Hazaribagh. As per him, the application of Ranchi cannot be considered in this case. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that as per 12(V) of the resolution, a candidate was required to submit an affidavit with a declaration that he/she had not applied for the same post in any other district of Jharkhand. The learned counsel submits that it was found that the petitioner had applied in Hazaribagh district and also submitted his affidavit dated 27.10.2023 in Ranchi stating that he had not applied in any other district except Ranchi. Thus, the petitioner has concealed the aforesaid fact which has led to his termination. 6. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner had already applied for the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak in the district of Hazaribagh and thereafter also submitted his application in the district of Ranchi. It is evident from the records that the petitioner has willfully tried to conceal this fact and also submitted a false affidavit while applying in the district of Ranchi. As per 12(V) of the Resolution dated 04.06.2007, the candidates for the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak can apply in only one district, and they must submit an affidavit along with their application stating that they have not applied for this particular post in any other district of Jharkhand state and if this affidavit is found to be false at any time, their 2 appointment will be automatically cancelled, and necessary legal action may also be taken against them. In the affidavit dated 27.10.2023, the petitioner has given an undertaking that he has not applied for the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak in any other district apart from Ranchi. The same is a false submission as he had applied in the district of Hazaribagh and also got selected though later on. It is settled principle that any person who seeks relief before law, must approach with clean hands without concealing or suppressing any material fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of K. Jayaram v. BDA, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 at para 10 has held as under: “10. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.” 7. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Clause 12(V) of the Resolution dated 04.06.2007 and the facts of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition, calling for any interference with the order termination, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 8. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. 9.
Decision
I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 10. Appearance of the Officer is hereby dispensed with. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23rd December, 2025 R.S./ Uploaded 26 /12/2025 3