State of Punjab & Ors. v. Parminder Kaur

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for the Caveator-respondent.

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J The instant appeal by the State of Punjab is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2010 rendered by a learned Single Judge. The petitioner- respondent sought a direction for posting her JBT/ETT teacher in pursuance of appointment letter dated 30.5.2008 and her merit list No.67.795 in the general category. She was not permitted because on verification of experience certificate tendered by her it was found to be bogus. The certificate is claimed to be issued by the Principal, L.D. Paramount High School, Nariangarh, Chheharata, Amritsar (ASR) claiming she taught there from 15.8.2004 to September, 2005. The verifying officer has revealed that no appointment letter was produced by the the Principal of L.D. Paramount High School nor any attendant register was shown. The officer further pointed out that even salary register was not produced. However, the petitioner succeeded in persuading the learned Single Judge for passing the following directions :-

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the factual events noticed above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Committee to submit its report regarding validity of the L.P.A. No. 927 of 2010 (O&M) -2- experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner. Suffice it to observe that if the Committee and the Competent Authority are satisfied with the genuineness of the experience certificate produced by the petitioner, the permissible marks shall be awarded to her and based upon her overall merit, her claim for appointment will have to be considered. However, if the 'experience certificate' of the petitioner is held to be bogus, her claim for appointment shall still be considered after excluding the marks for experience and in case she stands in merit list of general category, she shall be given appointment/ permitted to join duties. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab has come up in appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the aforesaid directions. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and counsel for Caveator- respondent have agreed that the appeal be taken up for final disposal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the direction given by the learned Single Judge, to the following effect, is not in accordance with law :-

.........However, if the experience certificate of the petitioner is held to be bogus, her claim for appointment shall still be considered after excluding the marks for experience and in case stands in merit list of general category, she shall be given appointment/ permitted to join the duties.

The Committee constituted by the learned Single Judge, may determine the authenticity of the certificate produced by the respondent- petitioner. If it is found to be authentic then appointment has to be given. However, if the certificate is found to be bogus by the Committee, then the respondent- petitioner becomes dis-entitled to claim any benefit with regard to her selection and appointment. Then in fact the matter should be taken L.P.A. No. 927 of 2010 (O&M) -3- to its logical conclusion. The petitioner- respondent as well as the certificate issuing authority should be proceeded against as per the penal law of this country. It is well settled that law comes to the rescue of those who approach the court with clean hands especially under equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Fraud vitiate and dis- entitled any person from obtaining any relief. Any person if found to have approached this court with soiled hands is rendered dis-entitled to have his case heard on merit and, therefore, the aforesaid direction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In support of the aforesaid view, we place reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs and others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853. In para 1, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under :- “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”

As a sequel to the above discussion we set aside the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge and uphold the other part of the directions. We also make it clear that if the experience certificate is found to be bogus then the matter shall be taken to its logical conclusion as already observed in para 4 of this judgment. A compliance report be sent to this Court by December 20, 2010.