The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.768 of 2024 Himansu Sekhar Meher …. Appellant State of Odisha and others …. Respondents -Versus- Advocates appeared in this case: For Appellant : Mr. Ramanath Acharya, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. A. Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 23rd April, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The appellant who approached the writ Court challenging the selection of the respondent No.6 in the post of a Hindi teacher under the reserved category is beleaguered by the distinction between the genuinity of the certificate and invalidity of the certificate. It admits no ambiguity that the candidature was offered by the appellant pursuant to the advertisement published for recruitment of various posts including the Hindi teacher and claimed at serial No.6 in the list prepared in this regard. W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 1 of 10 Undeniably, the candidate appearing at serial No.1 has been appointed in the post earmarked for unreserved category but the dispute hinges on the other post under the reserved category where the respondent No.6 has been appointed. 2. The writ petition containing several paragraphs is aimed towards the genuinity and the authenticity of the certificate issued by a society/institution which according to the petitioner was incompetent as it has been blacklisted. Since the serious question relating to the genuinity and the authenticity of the certificate being one of the eligible criteria for such post was raised before the learned single Judge at the time of admission, the Court recorded such submission and directed the respondent-authorities to file their affidavits dealing with such allegations. After exchange of the pleadings, the writ petition was decided and the learned single Judge does not find the allegations made in the writ petition to have been substantiated by cogent evidence. 3.
Legal Reasoning
in an adversarial system. It is merely a prima facie finding which is tentative in nature and does not pertake the character of a final opinion having expressed pending final adjudication in the proceedings. It would be misnomer to suggest that the prima facie findings recorded at the time of an interim order shall remain binding at the stage of final decision nor the law prescribed such concept of the test of finality. 15. In order to buttress the aforesaid notion, the hypothetical examples can aptly be applied in a proceeding filed before the civil Court, wherein and an application for injunction to protect the interest of the parties pending the final adjudication in the suit is passed upon recording the finding thereupon. If such finding is assumed to be final, there is no point of taking evidence from the Page 7 of 10 W.A. No.768 of 2024 parties to decide the issues to be framed therein. The interim order is passed in aid of the final relief, more particularly, to protect the interest of the parties or desisting them from altering their positions until a final adjudication is made. Precisely, for such reason, it is called a prima facie finding which is a tentative in nature and does not have any persuasive impact at the time of final adjudication. It would invite an anomalous situation in the jurisprudence if the Court after recording the submission of the petitioner/appellant invited the other side to file an affidavit, to treat such finding to be final and not susceptible to be tinkered with at any stage of the proceedings. We thus do not find that the order directing the parties to exchange affidavits shall be of any assistance to the appellant on the point that the Court has held the certificate to be fake and/or ingenuine. 16. It leads us to another point that the candidate placed in an above position could not have been appointed to a post earmarked for Scheduled Castes. We have been taken to the office order No.2896 dated 6th December, 2019 which contains the names of the successful candidates in the order of merit. The respondent No.6 in the instant appeal was placed at serial No.4 for the post of W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 8 of 10 a Hindi teacher and one Jagannath Bag was placed at serial No.5 as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The name of the appellant does not appear in the said merit list. 17. However, in course of the hearing, we find the tabular sheet prepared by the authority on the basis of a merit depicting the marks secured by each candidate in the said recruitment process, wherefrom it appears that the appellant offered his candidature under the same category that of the respondent No.6, i.e., SEBC and secured 187.04 marks. On the other hand, the respondent No.6 who also offered his candidature under SEBC secured 216.63 marks much higher than the total marks obtained by the appellant. 18. It appears that the respondent No.6 though claimed as a Socially and Economically Backward Classes category person but was placed in the UR category being more meritorious which is not impermissible in law. The merit cannot be compromised nor to be ignored in a public employment. The meritorious candidate deserves appointment in comparison to a less meritorious candidate, which appears in the instant case to have been followed by the authorities. Even if the respondent No.6 is a Socially and Economically Backward Classes category person yet, being more Page 9 of 10 W.A. No.768 of 2024 meritorious was placed under the UR category and since only one post was earmarked for such category, we do not find any infirmity and/or any illegality in appointing respondent No.6 in such position. 19. From whatever angle we look at do not find any merit in the stand of the appellant. 20. The appeal does not invite an admission and, therefore, is
Arguments
Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant vociferously submits that the findings returned by the learned single Judge is contrary to the pleadings of the parties, more particularly, the State in the affidavit has categorically admitted Page 2 of 10 W.A. No.768 of 2024 that the certificate is ingenuine and/or fake. It is arduously submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a person obtaining certificate from an institution which was blacklisted, cannot reap the benefit thereof and the authority ought to have rejected his candidature on the premise of lack of requisite educational qualification. It is thus submitted that the candidates who were placed above the appellant in the merit list have sought for clarification regarding the issuance of the said certificate but till date, there is no response from the competent authority which thus implies that the certificate is fake and should not be relied on. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the authorities after taking all reasonable care have filled up the posts by appointing the respondent No.6 and, therefore, merely on the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the appellant in the writ petition, no interference is warranted which in fact, is held by the learned single Judge. It is submitted that there is no infirmity and/or illegality in the judgment and order of the learned single Judge and, therefore, the writ appeal does not deserve admission nor should be entertained. W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 3 of 10 5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates has been filled up by a candidate belonging to a Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC), which is impermissible in law. 6. On the conspectus of the aforesaid pleadings and the submissions advanced before us, let us consider whether the impugned judgment warrants any interference on the points urged before us. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner/appellant was shown at serial number below the position of opposite party no.6 in the merit list for the post of a Hindi teacher. The petitioner has miserably failed to produce any document that the certificate issued by the institution/society is fake and fabricated. There is a stark distinction between a certificate which is fake and the certificate which can be termed as invalid. In former case, the very existence of the certificate is in issue and the institution or the society competent to issue the said certificate, in fact, did not issue such certificate. In later case, the institute which issued the certificate, W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 4 of 10 the genuinity thereof cannot be questioned but was incompetent to issue such certificate. 8. The moment a fake certificate is relied upon to secure the public employment, the Court must take a serious view in this regard as a person should not be permitted to secure the employment on the basis of a fake, fabricated and manufactured document. 9. We do not find any iota of piece of evidence having produced by the appellant that the certificates relied upon by the respondent No.6 is a fake one as the institution/society did not come forward and raise questions on the very existence thereof. Rather the pleading proceeds on the black listing of the institution/society and the reliance is heavily placed upon the documents where such issue was raised and, in fact, reached to the domain of the Inspector General of Registration (IGR). 10. The management and the functioning of the institution was an issue as the formation of executive committee/the governing body of the said society was questioned as not validly constituted which was ultimately decided by the said authority. Mere defective W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 5 of 10 body be it executive or governing does not automatically invite black listing of the institution rather it relates to its governance, management and the administration and in order to black list the institution, the proceeding is to be drawn with such specification. 11. Be that as it may, our attention was drawn to the relevant document from where we do not find that the competent authority has issued an order black listing the said institution/society and, therefore, we do not intend to deal deep into the same. The record would further reveal that the certificate so relied upon by the respondent No.6 was issued prior to the date of an application or at best an advertisement and the proceeding for defective committee of the society was decided at a later point of time. 12. We thus do not find that the certificate so relied upon by the respondent No.6 can be said to be a fake or invalid one and, therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is unacceptable to us. 13. An interesting submission is advanced by the appellant before us that the moment the Court has recorded that the certificate is ingenuine and directed the respondent-authorities to W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 6 of 10 file their affidavit, it tantamounts to an acceptance thereof and the sanctity of such recording cannot be doubted. We are unimpressed with the aforesaid submissions. 14. In a legal parlance at the time of an admission or passing an interim order, the Court, on the basis of the submissions advanced by the appellant/petitioner, directed the affidavits to be filed which can never assume finality in all tier of the adjudication
Decision
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given on a priority basis. Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) S. Behera A. Nanda Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:54:00 W.A. No.768 of 2024 Page 10 of 10