Anil Kumar a umar and others v. Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Case Details
CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1. umar Sunil Kumar CWP-18580-2016 (cid:1) Versus Versus ...Petitioner r The Managin anaging Director and others ...Respondents 2. CWP-20932-2016 Anil Kumar a umar and others ...Petitioners Versus Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBV HBVN) and others 3. CWP-20991-2016 Bir Singh and gh and another ...Petitioners Versus dents ...Respondents Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBV HBVN) and others 4. CWP-21446-2016 Hanuman and an and another ...Petitioners ioners Versus dents ...Respondents Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBV HBVN) and others 5. adav Rohit Yadav dents ...Respondents CWP-23390-2016 ...Petitioner r Versus Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and othe nd others PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dents ...Respondents CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 2 6. Sandeep Kum p Kumar CWP-23419-2016 Versus ...Petitioner ioner Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and othe nd others 7. Kumar Satish Kumar dents ...Respondents CWP-24157-2016 ...Petitioner Versus State of Hary Haryana and others ...Respondents 8 Satyabir Sing ir Singh CWP-2642-2015 ...Petitioner Versus The Managin others anaging Director, DHBVN and others ...Respondents 9. CWP-4574-2015 Manmohar S ohar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and othe nd others 10. Anoop Kuma Kumar dents ...Respondents CWP-5145-2015 ...Petitioner Versus Managing Di ing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli V ijli Vitran Nigam and others dents ...Respondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 3 11. CWP-5364-2017 Ravinder Sin er Singh Yadav ...Petitioner Versus Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and othe nd others 12. CWP-6624-2013 Sunder Singh Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus dents ...Respondents Dakshin Hary in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBV HBVN) and others 13. CWP-8395-2013 Bhupender K nder Kumar and others ...Petitioner ioners Versus dents ...Respondents hief Engineer/Admn. Haryana Vidyu d and Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and The Chief E others 14. Dara Singh dents ...Respondents CWP-8091-2018 ...Petitioner Versus State of Hary Haryana and others ...Respondents 15. CWP-21933-2016 Pawan Kuma Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Hary Haryana and others ...Respondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 4 Reserved on 20.11.2025 Pronounced on: 29.11.2025 Uploaded on:29.11.2025 Whether only Whether full j only the operative part of judgment is full judgment is pronounced? nt is pronounced? No Yes CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate for t 2023, 4374-2015, 20932-2016, 2 te for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6624- 016, 21446-2016, 20991-2016. Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate fo 2016. 1933- cate for the petitioner in CWP-21933 Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate for 015. te for petitioner in CWP-5145-2015. Mr. Saurabh Gulia, Advocate fo 2016. - ate for the petitioner in CWP-24157- Mr. Vijay Pal and Mr.Akash Lat petitioner(s) in CWP-2642-2015 8091-2018 and 11979-2023. sh Lather, Advocate for the 2015, 23390-2015, 23149-2016, ind K. Bangar, Advocate for the Mr. Lokendra and Mr.Arvind K. 2016. petitioner in CWP-18580-2016. Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana aryana. Mr. Ravi Ambawata, Advocate f for the petitioner in CWP-5364 ocate ocate for Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate 5364-2017. Mr. Manuj Kaushik, Advocate a for the respondent(s)-DHBVNL 2013. ocate cate and Mr. Tarsem Rana, Advocate - VNL in CWP-6624-2013 and 8395- Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for r CWP-5145-2015. te for respondents No.1 and 3 in Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhary, Advoc in CWP-2642-2015 and CWP- -4574-2015. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 5 HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. This common order shall disp titions dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned ab ned above as they arise from similar ose a imilar factual matrix and also pose a similar questi question of law. However, for the sak taken the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP- -18580-2016. 2. The present civil writ petition rticles etition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India for issu ure of or issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for for quashing of office order No.22 exure No.228 dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby hereby the petitioner has been ordered rvice, ordered to be dismissed from service, as well as ll as show cause notice dated 14.0 ential d 14.03.2016 and all consequential proceedings a dings arising therefrom. FACTUAL B UAL BACKGROUND 3. The respondent-DHBVN initi s for initiated recruitment process for filling up th up the vacancies for the post of A ) and t of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and various othe other posts through respondent ection dent No.4-Haryana Staff Selection Commission ission vide advertisement No.4 of 200 down of 2008. The advertisement laid down the following lowing eligibility criteria- “Matric with two years ITI in having 2 years Vocational Cou conducted by Director, ITI &V from any institute recognised must have passed Hindi/Sanskri e or I in Electrician/Wireman trade or Course under the trade of Lineman man I &Vocational Education, Haryana ana and sed by the State Government and skrit up to Matric Standard.” 4. In pursuance of the said advert ed advertisement, the petitioner applied for recruitme ruitment to the post of ALM B) under the Backward Class- B (BC-B) under PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 6 category. Upo ry. Upon ascertaining the eligibility of ed for lity of the petitioner, he was called for the written te tten test followed by an interview. The as an w. Thereafter, he was appointed as an ALM vide l vide letter dated 12.05.2010 (Annex d the Annexure P-2) which reiterated the eligibility cr lity criteria and called upon the iginal the petitioner to submit original certificates in ates in support of his qualifications a e ITI tions at the time of joining. The ITI certificate of ate of the petitioner was sent to the ustrial to the Principal, National Industrial Training Inst g Institute (Vocational Training Cent ‘NITI, g Centre), Rewari (hereinafter ‘NITI, Rewari’) for i’) for verification. The same was succ ervice s successfully verified and the service of the petition petitioner was confirmed. As a matter o ted to atter of fact, he was also promoted to the post of Li of Lineman vide office order dated 3 ated 31.12.2014. 5. After a lapse of about 06 years, ended years, respondent-DHBVN suspended the service of vice of the petitioner vide order dated 3) on dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P-3) on the ground t und that he had obtained his appoi ke appointment on the basis of a fake certificate. A ate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitio means petitioner moved this Court by means of CWP-593 5930-2016 which was dismissed a dated issed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2016. 016. A show cause notice dated 14 ) was ted 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the to the petitioner in furtherance of whic reply. f which he submitted a detailed reply. However, the er, the petitioner was dismissed from
Decision
order d from service vide impugned order dated 30.08.2 0.08.2016 (Annexure P-6). CONTENTI ENTIONS 6. Learned counsel for the petition tioner etitioner contended that the petitioner is a confirme nfirmed employee of respondent-DH linary DHBVN and the any disciplinary proceedings dings initiated against him have to b BVN e to be strictly in terms of DHBVN PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 7 Employees yees (Punishment and Appeal) R inafter al) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter ‘Regulations ations of 2016’). Since dismissal from ment, l from service is a major punishment, the procedure cedure laid down under Regulation 7 h ver, in tion 7 has to be followed. However, in contravention ention of the same, neither any cha n the y charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner nor er nor any misconduct in terms of the s been s of the Regulations of 2016 has been proved again against him; as such, the impugned o ide on gned order deserves to be set aside on this ground a und alone. 7. He further argued that the petit from e petitioner has been dismissed from service on th on the false premise that his ITI ce as not ITI certificate is fake, which has not been establis stablished on record. The petitione levant titioner had submitted all relevant documents fo ents for scrutiny at the relevant stage . Only t stage of the selection process. Only upon verifica erification of the same was the petit of e petitioner appointed to the post of ALM. Once Once the concerned authority has exe ne the as exercised its power to examine the eligibility of lity of a candidate, it cannot retrospect le. In rospectively declare him ineligible. In spite of a l f a long drawn out selection pro BVN n process, the respondent-DHBVN dismissed th sed the petitioner stating that NITI nised NITI, Rewari is an unrecognised institution an ion and therefore, the certificates issue s issued by it are invalid. 8. The petitioner neither misrepre facts. srepresented nor concealed any facts. Surprisingly, ingly, after the petitioner had alr rs of ad already rendered six years of impeccable service, the XEN/Op. Division ought ivision, DHBVN, Dharuhera sought clarification ation regarding genuineness of certif ewari certificates issued by NITI, Rewari from the H the Haryana Industrial Training dated Directorate, vide memo dated 18.12.2015. R 015. Relying upon the judgment ren ch of nt rendered by a Division Bench of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 8 this Court in urt in Home-cum-Education Secreta and cretary and another vs. Pafna and another in in CWP-2986-2015 decided on unsel on 28.04.2016, learned counsel contended th ded that there is a marked difference b nd an rence between a ‘fake’ degree and an ‘unrecognised gnised’ degree, especially in view of er had iew of the fact that the petitioner had no means of ns of knowing the nature of the insti e. The e institution at the relevant time. The petitioner is er is a well-trained professional whic e fact l which is also evident from the fact of his promo promotion to the post of Lineman. T of the an. Terminating the services of the petitioner at er at such a belated stage is comple cause ompletely arbitrary and would cause irreparable lo able loss to him by rendering him une l have m unemployed. Learned counsel have also place rel ace reliance on the judgments rendere agat endered by this Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma vs. S vs. State of Haryana, Bidhi Chan Bijli hand vs. The Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam igam and others 2002(4) SCT 1028 te of 1028, Satnam Kaur vs. The State of Haryana and and others to support their case. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for mitted el for respondent-DHBVN submitted that the appo e appointment of the petitioner was sub itions as subject to fulfilment of conditions listed in the in the offer of appointment letter date 2). er dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P-2). Regulation 1 tion 1.2 of the Recruitment and Prom zetted d Promotion Policy of Non-Gazetted Technical St cal Staff, as applicable to DHBVN, eking BVN, requires a candidate seeking appointment tment to the post of ALM to p te for to possess an ITI certificate for Electrician/W cian/Wireman trade or have completed course pleted 02 years of Vocational course in the trade trade of Lineman. However, the d his r, the petitioner has received his certification ation from NITI, Rewari which is n ryana h is not recognised by the Haryana Industrial Tr ial Training Directorate, as intimated .2015 imated vide memo dated 29.12.2015 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 9 (Annexure R ure R-1/1). Upon receiving this inform BVN information, the respondent-DHBVN placed the pe the petitioner under suspension and d notice and duly served a show-cause notice dated 14.03.2 .03.2016 upon him. Further, Para N tment Para No.7 of the offer of appointment letter (Annex (Annexure P-2) specifically states th ld be ates that the certification should be obtained by d by “any institute recognised by h, the by the State Govt.”As such, the petitioner do er does not meet the eligibility cri ndent- ity criteria to serve the respondent DHBVN. Th N. The promotion to the petitioner wa ionary ner was also granted on probationary basis, only in nly in view of the seniority. Learned ce on arned counsel also places reliance on the judgment gment rendered by this Court in Aza ana Azad Rakib vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran itran Nigam Ltd. and others C on rs CWP-17101-2017 decided on 06.09.2019 19 wherein the dismissal of petition unt of petitioner from service on account of ITI certificate tificate from a bogus institute, was up hat he was upheld in spite of the fact that he had served th ved the concerned department for 07 y otion. or 07 years and received a promotion. Furthermore, rmore, the applicant should possess t n the ssess the desired qualification on the date of the a f the application and not subsequentl of the quently, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar T of mar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and oth d others 2013(4) SCT 543. OBSERVAT RVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 10. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record of ord of the abovementioned cases, it t ion of es, it transpires that adverse action of suspension/te sion/termination, as the case may b st the may be, has been taken against the petitioner(s) er(s) on discovering that they do no ion to do not possess valid certification to continue serv e serving on the post they had errone While erroneously been appointed to. While PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 10 one set of m t of matter pertains to the forged and nother d and fabricated certificates, another set relates to tes to certificates that have been found ns not found to be issued by institutions not recognised by ised by the Haryana Industrial Training raining Directorate. 11. A reference must be made the le dum the legal maxims- nullus commodum capere potes otest de injuria sua propria which c n can hich can be translated to- no man can take advantag vantage of his own wrong, and sublat which blato fundamento cadit opus which translates to tes to- when the foundation is remo When removed, the structure falls. When employment ment itself has been secured by playin ority, playing fraud on the hiring authority, the delay in ay in discovery of the charade canno gainst cannot be used as a defence against adverse cons e consequences. Further, no protect such protection can be claimed by such employees in ees in terms of Regulations of 2016 a de the 2016 as these Regulations provide the procedure tha ure that ought to be adopted in the eve art of he event of any misconduct on part of an employee ployee during the course of his serv (s) in is service. Since the petitioner(s) in CWP-233390 33390-2016, CWP-23419-2016 an tained 6 and CWP-8091-2018 obtained employment ment on the basis of a forged and fab ervice nd fabricated certificate, their service becomes voi void ab initio and thus, the benef edure benefit of the prescribed procedure under Regula Regulation 7 cannot be made availa scape available to them merely to escape accountability tability as fraud vitiates all. Relianc laced eliance in this regard can be placed upon the jud he judgment rendered by the Hon’bl n of on’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Pro . Prohlad Guha 2024 AIR SC 3588 p vs. 3588 and this Court in Kuldeep vs. State of Hary Haryana in CWP-26033-2025 decid ecided on 03.09.2025. 12. Reliance in this regard can als gment an also be placed on the judgment rendered by ed by a two-Judge bench of the Ho Ram he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 11 Chandra Sin Singh vs. Savitri Devi and other herein others (2003) 8 SCC 319, wherein speaking thro g through Justice S.B.Sinha, the follo e following was opined: “15. facts a known togethe 16. Fr other p respon 17. It fraud. claim r 18. A leading believe represe therefr procee 19. In LJ Ch 5. Commission of fraud on court cts are the core issues involved in t own vitiates every solemn act. F gether. . Fraud is a conduct either by lette her person or authority to take a de sponse to the conduct of the former e . It is also well settled that misre ud. Indeed, innocent misrepresent aim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation i ading a man into damage by wilful lieve and act on falsehood. It is a presentations which he knows to erefrom although the motive fro oceeded may not have been bad. . In Derry v. Peek, (1889)14 AC 337 Ch 864 : 61 LT 265 (HL). it was hel "In an `action of deceit the pla Fraud is proved when it is sho has been made knowingly, or recklessly, without caring wheth A false statement, mad without reasonable ground for evidence of fraud but does no Such a statement, if made in the not fraudulent and does not ren to an action of deceit. court and suppression of material erial in these matters. Fraud as is well well well t. Fraud and justice never dwell letter or words, which induces the the as a a definite determinative stand as a er either by word or letter. isrepresentation itself amounts to s to n to sentation may also give reason to ion is called deceit and consists in ts in m to ilfully or recklessly causing him to akes is a fraud in law if a party makes s to be false, and injury ensues sues ions from which the representations : 58 337 : (1886-90) All ER Rep 1 : 58 s held: aud. e plaintiff must prove actual fraud. shown that a false representation tion , or , or without belief in its truth, or hether it be true or false. made through carelessness and and for believing it to be true, may be y be aud. s not necessarily amount to fraud. n the honest belief that it is true, is e, is able t render the person making it liable 20. In . In Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, at p "The true and only sound princi represented by Slim v. Crouche LJ Ch 273 : 2 LT 103 : 45 ER 46 is fraudulent not only when the false, but also when, as Jessel, have known, or must be taken to This is a sound and intelligible inconsistent with Derry v. Peek All ER Rep 1 : 58 LJ Ch 86 statement which a person ough which he must therefore be ta cannot be said to be honestly b , at p. 23, it is stated: rinciple to be derived from the cases ases : 29 ucher, (1860)1 De GF & J 518 : 29 R 462. is this: that a representation tion the person making it knows it to be o be t to ssel, M.R., pointed out, he ought to en to have known, that it was false. alse. ible principle, and is, moreover, not , not 90) Peek, (1889)14 AC 337 : (1886-90) 864 : 61 LT 265 (HL).. A false false ught to have known was false, and and e taken to have known was false, alse, n of tly believed in. 'A consideration of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 12 the grounds of belief', said Lo important aid in ascertaining entertained. A man's mere a statement he made to be true proof that he did so.'" t an d Lord Herschell, 'is no doubt an ing whether the belief was really ally e assertion that he believed the the sive true is not accepted as conclusive 21. In . In Bigelow on Fraudulent Conveya "If on the facts the average ma that is enough." . It was further opined: 22. It w veyances, at p. 1, it is stated: ong, e man would have intended wrong, 23. Re Yadav (2003) "This conception of fraud (and may speak of it without diffiden render the administration of the make its administration more ef upon the last matter, it will do a confusion in regard to 'moral' addition to other things, often behind such convenient and in language as 'fraud upon the law Fraud can be committed only ag and 'fraud upon the law' darken at in most cases by this obscure and fraud upon the law, is a individual's intention to commit the obvious tendency of the act i . Recently this Court by an order dav v. U.P. Board of High Scho 003)8 SCC 311 : JT 2003 Supp (1) S "Fraud is a conduct either by let other person or authority to tak as a response to the conduct of letter. Although negligence is n on fraud. (See Derry v. Peek, (18 In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. 341: the Court of Appeal stated 'I cannot accede to th No court in this land wi advantage which he has of a court , no order of stand if it has been obta everything. The court is c is distinctly pleaded and vitiates judgments, con whatsoever;" In S.P. Chengalvaraya N SCC 1 this Court stated that f , he (and since it is not the writer's, he fidence), steadily kept in view, will will f the law less difficult, or rather will will arge re effective. Further, not to enlarge lent do away with much of the prevalent oral' fraud, a confusion which, in , in fuge ften causes lawyers to take refuge cure d indeed useful but often obscure e law'. What is fraud upon the law? aw? hts, ly against a being capable of rights, med rkens counsel. What is really aimed scure contrast between moral fraud raud is a contrast between fraud in the the n in mit the wrong and fraud as seen in act in question." der dated 3-9-2003 in Ram Preeti reeti tion, chool & Intermediate Education, (1) SC 25. held: y letter or words, which induces the s the tand take a definite determinative stand ct of the former either by words or s or ence is not fraud but it can be evidence k, (1889)14 AC 337:.) v. Beasley, ted the law thus: ent. o this argument for a moment. will allow a person to keep an an has obtained by fraud. No judgment ent d to of a minister, can be allowed to obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels vels is careful not to find fraud unless it ss it d it and proved; but once it is proved it ions transactions ya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994)1 94)1 acts, hat fraud avoids all judicial acts, contracts and all ER (1956)1 All ER PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 13 ecclesiastical or temporal." An act of fraud on court is alway conspiracy with a view to depriv lation to a property would render raud and deception are synonymous 24. An or con relatio Fraud lways viewed seriously. A collusion sion eprive the rights of the others in s in itio. der the transaction void ab initio. ous.”(emphasis added) 12.1. Further, a three-Judge bench of urt in nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jainendra Si ra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. 748, rinl. Sec. Home (2012) 8 SCC 748, has categoric tegorically held that no estoppels wo those els would operate in favour of those who acquired cquired employment by defrauding th rough ing the employer. Speaking through Justice Fakki Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, th ulla, the following was held: “31. A Divisio bestow while d the va aggrie 1. As noted by us, all the above ivision Bench of this Court consist stowed our serious consideration ile dealing with such an issue, the C e various cardinal principles befo grieved party, namely: ove decisions were rendered by a y a ving nsisting of two-Judges and having that ion to the issue, we consider that the Court will have to bear in mind ind the before granting any relief to the (i) Fraudulently obtained ord orders of appointment could be be oyer able at the option of the employer legitimately treated as voidable rely employer and in such cases merely or could be recalled by the emp ployee has continued in service for e for because the respondent employ basis of such fraudulently obtained ined a number of years, on the basis any any equity in his favour or any employment, cannot get any er. estoppel against the employer. acter and antecedents is one of the f the (ii) Verification of the characte e is whether the selected candidate is important criteria to test whe the State and on account of his his suitable to the post under the authority if find not desirable to e to antecedents the appointing aut o be ciplined force can it be said to be appoint a person to a disciplin unwarranted. (iii) When appointment was pro of forged documents, it would and fraud on the employer and equity in his favour or any e while resorting to termination w (iv) A candidate having suppres giving false information cann service and the employer, ha employment as well as other s procured by a person on the basis asis tion ould amount to misrepresentation and, therefore, it would create no e no oyer ny estoppel against the employer ion without holding any inquiry. pressed material information and/or d/or annot claim right to continue in e in , having regard to the nature of e of n to her aspects, has the discretion to PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 14 for tion urpose of calling for information terminate his services. Purpo any criminal case or detention or n or regarding involvement in any the the the purp urpose of verification of conviction is and time of recruitment and the the character/antecedents at rial information will have clear lear suppression of such material te in nd antecedents of the candidate in bearing on the character and a service. relation to his continuity in serv pressed the material information tion (v) The person who suppress for ation cannot claim any right for and/or gives false information in service. appointment or continuity in se xxx xxx xxx” xxx 13. Moving on, in some of the w e, the the writ petitions listed above, the petitioner(s) w er(s) were suspended/dismissed upon ficate- upon discovering that the certificate issuing autho authority which happens to be NITI ss the e NITI, Rewari does not possess the requisite rec te recognition from Haryana Industr . This Industrial Training Directorate. This factum has a has also been corroborated by the D from the Directorate as discernible from Annexure R ure R-1/1, which also provides a list o . This a list of similar bogus institutes. This Court in Bidh Bidhi Chand (supra), has categoric annot egorically held that experience cannot be equated w ated with education, especially for jo tise is for jobs where skill and expertise is vital while i hile in Satnam Kaur (supra) it was ion of it was opined that long duration of service is no is not reason enough to forego the rther, o the original requirements. Further, this Court in urt in Ram Bhagat Sharma (supra) e G.S. pra), speaking through Justice G.S. Singhvi, obse i, observed as follows: “18. that t Allaha should who ha Hindi The iss institut We also do not find any merit in at the examinations conducted b lahabad, through the centres estab ould be treated as duly recognised b o have passed such examinations h indi Teachers in the Education depa e issue of recognition of the examin stitution has to be considered and wan it in the argument of Shri Sangwan ed by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, lan, stablished in the State of Haryana ana ates sed because a number of candidates ns have already been employed as d as department of the State of Haryana. ana. mination conducted by a particular ular hich nd decided by the authority which PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 15 prescr this ca qualifi recogn Govern Govern draw merely been a refer t AIIMS Suprem escribes the qualifications for recru is case, it is the State Government alifications. Therefore, the deci cognise the particular qualification overnment and not by the C overnment has not taken such a aw an inference on the issue of erely because some persons possess en appointed as Hindi Teachers. In fer to the observations made by th IIMS and others v. Dr. Nikhil preme Court Cases 741 : 1996(2) S ''The training a two years' undergone by the respondent cannot be treated as a qualifica DM. Schedule I to the AIIMS R qualification or a qualificati thereto. It is not mere equivalen be recognised as equivalent. Recognised evidently means re least by the Medical Council of recognised the said research wo Cambridge University as equiva In recruitment to a particular post. In ent which prescribes the requisite isite decision to recognise or not to t to tate ations has to be taken by the State the State tate e Court. Admittedly, a decision, therefore, we cannot nnot ions e of recognition of qualifications ssessing similar qualifications have have In this regard, it will be useful to ul to ctor, by the Supreme Court in Director, 6(7) hil Tandon and others, 1996(7) (2) SCT 270. rsity the Cambridge University g at h.D. ent while working for his Ph.D. ification recognised as equivalent to nt to DM S Recruitment Rules speaks of DM lent ication recognised as equivalent also valence that is enough. It must also r at s recognised by the Institute or at il of India. Admittedly, neither has has the h work/training for two years in the uivalent to DM.” 13.1. As a matter of fact, this Court in pra) ourt in Ram Bhagat Sharma (supra) had gave an ve an opportunity to the teachers w uisite hers who had obtained the requisite qualification cation from an unrecognised institution ars of titution but had completed 03 years of service, to , to acquire the desired qualificati time. lification within a stipulated time. However, th er, the Hon’ble Supreme Court i U.P. ourt in Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary E ry Education Services Commission greed ssion (2008) 7 SCC 153 disagreed with this app is approach. Speaking through Justice g was Justice S.B. Sinha, the following was observed: “24. A been in that th was in issuan 4. A departmental proceeding aga en initiated after the change of man at the said proceeding was initiated s initiated. Appellant, however, ha uance of or in the nature of a wri have against the appellant might have management. We will also assume ume iated after the contempt proceeding ding r, has filed a writ application for for fore, writ of mandamus. He, therefore, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 16 must corresp requisi right t the sai ust establish existence of a leg rresponding legal duty in the Sta quisite qualification to hold a post ght to continue. It was, therefore, im e said proceeding had been initiated d a legal right in himself and a State. If he did not possess the the post, he could not have any legal egal hen re, immaterial as to why and when iated against him. Relian Uttar P a conc agreed will be this C Article arose t relaxa require the Sel liance placed by Mr. P.S. Patwalia ttar Pradesh and Others [(1990)3 S concession was made on behalf of th reed that asking the appellant therei ll be doing injustice to her. Such a is Court in exercise of its extra ticle 142 of the Constitution of Indi ose therein was as to whether the S laxation of the educational quali quired to be obtained. It was held th e Selection Committee. te of alia on Shainda Hasan v. State of )3 SCC 48] is not apposite. Therein rein of the State that the University had had ears erein to leave the job after 16 years h a view might have been taken by n by tra ordinary jurisdiction under nder that India. The question, however, that rant he Selection Committee could grant ualification vis-a-vis the experience ence st in ld that such a power did not exist in It was, sought lacked a case was, therefore, a case where relaxat ught for and granted. It was not a c cked basic educational qualification. case where the appellant lacked basi xxx xx xxx was axation in regard to experience was rein t a case where the appellant therein with tion. Herein, we are concerned with basic educational qualification. xxx 27. A s before Punjab three J . A similar question, on the other h fore this Court in Ravinder Sharma njab and Others, 1995(1) SCT 48 : ree Judges' Bench held : er hand, came up for consideration tion te of rma (Smt.) and Another v. State of in a 48 : [(1995)1 SCC 138] wherein a , the ectly appointed. In such a case, the "12. The appellant was directly qualification must be either : (i) A Graduate/Intermediate sec (ii) Matric first class. Admittedly, the appellant did That being so, the appointm the Govern to recommended qualification under Regulation Government rejected that reco the appointment was clearly aga to be set aside. That being so, ever arise. We respectfully agr High Court." second class or, for relaxation of did not possess this qualification. tion. intment is bad. The Commission sion the the vernment ation 7 of the Regulations. The The recommendation. Where, therefore, fore, able y against Regulation 7, it was liable so, no question of estoppel would ould the agree with the view taken by the 28. Alm Sartaj 2006(1 . Almost to the same effect is the d rtaj and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 06(1) SC 331] holding : the decision of this Court in Mohd. ohd. [JT nd Others, 2006(1) SCT 610 : [JT PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 17 "It is settled law that the qualif which the candidate possessed not at a later stage unless rule minimum qualification prescri fulfilled on the date of recruitm Moallium-e-Urdu, Jamia Urdu the year 1994 would not entail the date they were appointed. been appointed to the post of training required under Rule appointments of the appellant could not be treated to be reasons, we do not find any sub accordingly, dismissed." seen ualification should have been seen ssed on the date of recruitment and and rules to that regard permit it. The The be escribed under Rule 8 should be ruitment. Equivalence of degree of e of rdu Aligarh with that of B.T.C. in . in s on tail the benefit to the appellants on ted. The appellants could not have have t of Asstt. Teachers without having ving the ule 8. That being the case, the llants were de hors the Rules and and be continued. For the aforesaid said are, substance in the appeals and are, 29. Re Others . Recently again in Ashok Kumar thers, 2007(2) SCT 19 : [(2007)4 SC "16. Indisputably, the appella requisite qualification as on t therefore, not eligible therefor and ar Sonkar v. Union of India and 4 SCC 54], it was held : pellant herein did not hold the the was, on the said cut-off date. He was, for."” 14. It is the prerogative of the h ut an the hiring authority to lay out an (emphasis added) eligibility cr lity criterion as it is best suited to nd its ited to understand the role and its requirements ments and this Court cannot inter fer to interfere with it. In the offer to appointment tment letters issued by the respond fically espondents, it has been specifically stipulated tha ted that the appointment shall be sub itions be subject to fulfilment of conditions contained the ed therein. As mentioned in the reply dents e reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, pa 3, para 7 of the offer to appointment l tment letter reads as follows: he above offer of appointment is be “The a derstanding:- unders 1. That you actually possess the fo 7.1. Th oduce all the original certificates in produc 1.1. Matric with 2 years ITI Electric 7.1.1. ars Vocational course under the tr years irector, ITI and Vocational Educatio Direct recogn cognized by the State Govt.” added) added) tinct is being made to you on the distinct will he following qualification and will s in its support:- ng 2 ctrician/Wireman trade or having 2 he trade of Lineman conducted by d by itute cation, Haryana from any institute (emphasis PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 18 15. There is no ambiguity that the cation at the requisite technical qualification had to be ob be obtained from an institution recog nment recognised by the State Government at the time o time of recruitment. As such, the petit nsure e petitioner(s) are expected to ensure that they do i ey do in fact qualify for appointment. scape ment. The petitioner(s) cannot escape liability by y by placing the entire burden to ointed en to weed out wrongly appointed employees on ees on the State particularly when th care. hen they failed to exercise due care. Allowing suc ng such an approach would amount ul act ount to legitimising a wrongful act merely becau because it went undetected. A two on’ble two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court in National Council for T enus for Teacher Education vs. Venus Public Educ ducation Society (2013) 1 SCC ustice CC 223, speaking through Justice Dipak Misra Misra made the following observations vations: “35. N the app decisio the soc regard has be withou univer the stu the law They institu say so Possib incomp possibl necess comme such tremen whethe 5. Now, to the last plank of submis e appellant. It is urged by him that th cision at every stage and such delay e society was compelled to admit the gard being had to the fact that there s been laid down in many a pron thout recognition from the NCT iversity/examining body, the educa e students. An educational instituti e law. The students who take adm ey are graduates. They are expe stitution has recognition and affili y so, the institution had given admi functionaries harbour ssibly, comparable fertile mind. The stude ssibly immersed with the idea that cessary to state that the institution mmercialize education and earn mo ch an attitude leads to a disa emendous anxiety to get a degree w hether their effort, if any, had the bmission of the learned counsel for l for d its hat the NCTE had procrastinated its delay was deliberate and, therefore, fore, t the students and impart education, tion, . As here were really no deficiencies. As pronouncement of this Court that that NCTE and affiliation from the the dmit ducational institution cannot admit titution is expected to be aware of e of admission are not young in age. age. the expected to enquire whether the iliation. If we allow ourselves to s to admission in a nonchalant manner. ner. had they had boured students who had taken admission sion that ignorance is a bliss. It is also also m to tion had the anxious enthusiasm to n money forgetting the factum that that disaster. The students exhibited ited ee without bothering for a moment ent udes the sanctity of law. Such attitudes idea that the its PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 19 only b case w Scylla to be "trans the stu The in seems studen The la propou appella the sam ly bring nemesis. It would not be se which put the institution or th ylla and charybdis. On the contrar be Argus-eyed. The basic ransparency". Unfortunately, the i e students and the students, in a wa e institution decidedly exhibited ch ems that they had forgotten that the udents, while thinking "vision of e law does not countenance either opounded with anxiety, vehemence a pellant is not acceptable and, acco e same.” ot a t be wrong to say that this is not a r the students to choose between een ntrary, both of them were expected cted been should have been sic motto the institution betrayed the trust of st of a way, atrophied their intelligence. nce. s. It d characteristics of carelessness. It t they are accountable to law. The The of hope", chose to play possum. um. plea ither of the ideas. Hence, the plea ce and desperation on behalf of the f the epel accordingly we unhesitatingly repel Reliance in this regard can als gment an also be placed on the judgment rendered by ed by this Court in Monu vs. State o 025 te of Haryana in CWP-4559-2025 decided on 13 on 13.11.2025. 16. Be that as it may, the responde e held spondent-DHBVN must also be held accountable. table. Public employment opportuni as it ortunities are highly coveted as it carries with i with itself the assurance of stability en its bility and dignity. However, given its scarce natur nature, every such opportunity as e for ity assumes great significance for aspirants who ts who pursue it with commendable d efore, able dedication and hope. Therefore, it is of the ut the utmost importance to ensure that t mains e that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, tr nct, transparent and free from evils o e duly evils of arbitrariness. It must be duly appreciated iated that hiring an ineligible cand ing a candidate also means depriving a deserving can ing candidate of the opportunity to be nd the to be in service of the State and the benefits eman s emanating therefrom. The sentiments choed timents of this Court were also echoed by a Co-ordi ordinate bench while issuing notice t case notice of motion in the present case vide order da der dated 07.09.2016. The same is rep e is reproduced below: “ certific Heard. There may hardl rtificate on the basis of which em ardly be any doubt that the trade rade the h employment was offered to the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 20 petitio Institu Harya service taken which about Trainin with w be gen As far Nigam titioner by the Nigam was bogus, if stitute from where it was obtaine aryana Government. On the basis of rvices have been terminated by the i ken extreme action on discovery of ich remains is that what steps is the out reigning in these teaching shops aining Institutes spread across Ha th worthless certificates which they genuine while applying for public far as termination is concerned gam would be heard on notice issued the s, if not a fake document, since the tained was not recognized by the the is of this certificate, the petitioner's er's has the impugned order. The Nigam has ry of the fact. But the larger issue ssue s the Government of Haryana taking king al hops going by the name of National Haryana duping gullible students ents hey may have innocently believed to d to am. blic posts advertised by the Nigam. dent ed and it validity, the respondent ssued to justify action taken. o be ial stage the State is ordered to be However, at the initial s the Chief Secretary, tary, 4 through th pleaded as respondent No.4 t on ss the views of the Government on overnment of Haryana to express th on ey should be permitted to run on ch institutions and whether they s ts and leave them in the lurch. The The aryana soil only to dupe students an bove ould file an affidavit on the above ief Secretary or his nominee would teps ent itself should not take firm steps cluding explaining why Government n against such institutions and their their initiate criminal and civil action ag ine acticing deceit etc. and to examine anagements for cheating and practi land of the cases where change of land e feasibility in reconsideration of th nstructions to be raised in the name ame e has been granted to permit constru the advisability of of to to consider ts to d to call upon their managements to ious owner/s. This appears to be the the g and sharp practises resorted to by o by ent ped in Haryana by its Government use of technical education, and also also uch ourt against wasted time in such implea Govern such i Harya Chief includi to initi manag the fea use ha imparting education and im of withdr return only st manag commi with a litigati thdrawing such permissions and to turn the land to the rightful previous ly stern way out to stop cheating an anagements which can be stopped mmitted, as it must be, to the cause o th a view to safeguard this Cour igation. Had the Nigam in the ve to the validity of the certificate by lied upon by a candidate, this cas pointment been denied at the thresh r 6 years and then woke up to throw e very beginning made an inquiry uiry ents e by timely scrutiny of documents case would not have arisen, had had p by reshold. The Nigam let time slip by row the petitioner out of job. into th relied appoin for 6 y The Nigam, on its part, w pse in recruiting person who applied rtificate and what action has take rmitted such a recruitment to be cessary to examine the still larger ate should turn against a candidate rt, will also explain on affidavit its it its fake plied on the strength of a bogus/fake taken against erring officers who who be made. For this, it would be be ger issue that a Corporation of the f the after ate and terminate his services after lapse i certific permit necess State s PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 21 utilizin balanc and the ilizing his services for 6 years. All lanced out after receiving replies f d the one impleaded by Court. o be All these issues would need to be ents ies from the respective respondents Notice of motion, returnab rnable by 18.10.2016. Notice re: stay as well. On the asking of Cou .A.G.,Haryana, accepts notice on be ives service on the State. Mr. Bhard the paper-books in the Office of A e advance copy to Mr. Rathee during Court, Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Sr. and n behalf of the 5th respondent and hardwaj to supply requisite number ber with of Advocate General Haryana with uring the course of the day. D.A.G waives of the one ad ugh ing respondents be issued through Notice to the remaining mode. ocess dasti in addition to usual mode proces A copy of this order be g e Bench Secretary of this Court fo ief Secretary, Haryana for his imm tion which may include blacklisting stitutions and publicizing action tak at students are forewarned not to pect to land jobs in Government ser d Nigams.” the Be Chief S action institut that st expect and Ni be given to Mr. Rathee attested by d by the rt for onward transmission to the tive immediate attention and affirmative isting of bogus technical education tion a so taken against then in the media so and t to seek admissions therein an ions t service and in State Corporations 17. While this Court may symp ner(s) sympathise with the petitioner(s) regarding th ng the delay, the settled law mu ner(s) w must prevail. The petitioner(s) misrepresente resented their eligibility by failing th the to ensure compliance with the expressly sta sly stated qualifications set out in th This, in their offer of appointment. This, however, do er, does not imply the existence of of the ce of mens rea on the part of the petitioner(s). er(s). In any event, mens rea iminal is relevant only to criminal proceedings, dings, and the absence thereof canno from cannot shield the petitioner(s) from civil conseq consequences. Since the very fou er(s)’ y foundation of the petitioner(s)’ employment ment stands vitiated by the use of cer nised of certificates issued by unrecognised PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 22 institutions, t ions, they cannot claim entitlement to such ent to any benefits arising from such tainted servic service. As far as cases pertaining t ed the ning to employees who obtained the desired certif certification subsequent to their ap , they eir appointment are concerned, they would surely surely be entitled to benefits of the sa yment the same for any future employment prospects but cts but the same shall not suffice to ju imilar ce to justify reappointment. A similar observation ation has been made by a Coord dated Coordinate bench in order dated 01.08.2018, w 018, with regards to the contractual em fy the tual employees who do not satisfy the essential req al requirements. The relevant part o duced part of the said order is reproduced below: “ All essenti Univer appoin degree such c elsewh All contractual appointments mad qualifica advertised sential niversities/Technical Board/Institut pointment. In cases where contrac grees/diplomas/certificates from rec ch certificates for future recruitme sewhere, a right which they would po ding made without candidates holding ized recognized from lifications re- for re stitutes have no case ined ntractual employees have obtained use recognized institutes they may use or itment in the respondent-Nigam or ld possess in any case.” CONCLUSI LUSION 18. In view of the discussion ab tioned ion above, all the abovementioned petitions are s are dismissed being bereft of any ) who of any merit. The petitioner(s) who acquired the d the requisite qualification from a re quent m a recognised institution subsequent to the recrui recruitment, can avail benefit of the fresh of the same if they apply for fresh appointment, tment, subject to applicable rules and r s and regulations. 19. However, in the matter at hand, ion of hand, the fault in the qualification of the petitione titioner was identified 06 years pos laxity rs post his recruitment. Such laxity displayed by ed by the respondent-DHBVN canno ape or cannot be condoned in any shape or PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18580 580-2016 and other connected matte atters 23 form. In Mon Monu(supra), the verification of ce n was n of certificate-issuing institution was completed af ted after the petitioner therein had sp nly in had spent 07 years in service, only in pursuance o nce of an order of this Court dir eputy rt directing the concerned Deputy Commissione issioner of Police to do the needf nds it needful. Thus, this Court finds it appropriate riate to direct the Managing Dir ulate g Director, DHBVN to formulate guidelines a nes and issue instructions for veri of its r verification of credentials of its employees w ees within 06 months of their recruit cruitment. 20. A compliance affidavit in this re gistry this regard be filed with the Registry within 03 mo 03 months of receipt of a certified cop of this ied copy of this order. A copy of this order also b also be supplied to learned State co el for ate counsel and learned counsel for respondent- -DHBVNL for information and co and compliance. 21. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand pplication(s), if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. 22. Photocopy of this order be pl ected be placed on the file of connected cases. November P.C 29, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable king/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ortable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document