Mohammad Ikhlaque v. State of Rajasthan & anr

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally. It is a case where petitioner appeared for selection to the post of Gram Sewak pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996. He appeared in the written examination and declared pass thus called for interview. Petitioner's result was thereafter cancelled followed by registration of FIR. It is stated that after police investigation, negative final report was submitted before the Magistrate. A protest petition was filed by the respondents, however, final report was accepted 2 by the Magistrate followed by challenge to the order of the Magistrate could not sustain. The learned Magistrate considered every aspect of the matter and found that no evidence has been produced to indicate that in place of the petitioner another person appeared in the selection. The prosecution failed to show as to who appeared in place of the petitioner. As per report of the FSL, writing of the petitioner tallied and was found in order. Ignoring the aforesaid, petitioner's result was cancelled based on report submitted by the committee on their own whims. They were not the expert to match the hand writing of the petitioner. In view of the above, cancellation of the result of the petitioner becomes illegal. This is more so when petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing and otherwise also, interview committee was not authorised to ask questions from the petitioner as interview was to verify the documents. Looking to all these aspects, while allowing the writ petition, respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the year 1996 itself. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner appeared in the examination and stood at merit No.2. He was called for interview wherein he was asked 3 questions, however, he could not answer questions correctly. The interview board recorded the questions and answers given by the petitioner. It was thereafter signed by the petitioner. When petitioner could not answer correctly and properly before the interview board, the matter was investigated as to how petitioner has secured high marks in the written examination and signature of the petitioner was tallied. It was found to be a case of impersonation thus result was cancelled. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner however police submitted FR. The learned Magistrate considered the matter and referring the cases of “Kalidas” and “Mahatma Gandhi”, accepted the final report ignoring the protest petition. It was held that one may forget things and there is always scope of improvement even if one has not done well earlier. The specific illustration of Kalidas has been given to show improvement in him. The way discussion has been made, shows that instead of considering the matter on the issue of impersonation and acceptance/ rejection of the final report, learned Magistrate travelled beyond its jurisdiction. In any case, it is a case of impersonation thus result of the petitioner was cancelled. In view of the above, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 4 The facts not in dispute, are that petitioner stood at No.2 in the merit list. He was called for interview. Therein, various questions were asked from him and those questions and answers recorded have been submitted by the respondents along with the reply. The questions and answers have been written followed by signature of the petitioner. When all the questions could not be answered by the petitioner correctly, matter was investigated and it was found that signature of the petitioner are not tallied. Accordingly, it was found to be a case of impersonation and petitioner's selection was cancelled. The department thereupon lodged an FIR. The matter was investigated by the police and final report was submitted before the learned Magistrate. It was accepted by the learned Magistrate however I find that largely irrelevant considerations are made therein. In any case, the protest petition was rejected and final report was accepted. Further challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate could not sustain. I have gone through the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents and find that difference in signatures of the petitioner is coming out apparently. In the interview what has been answered bears his signature and if other 5 documents are looked into, signature of the petitioner does not tally. On careful perusal of the record, I find that the issue as to whether petitioner's signatures are same or not, has not been considered by the learned Magistrate. In any case, on careful perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in cancelling selection of the petitioner and criminal case cannot govern earlier administrarive action. The question now comes as to whether order cancelling selection of the petitioner could have been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not? I find that if a candidate is involved in impersonation, he is not required to be given an opportunity of hearing more so when his performance was looked into while he was called for interview. His signature exists on the questions asked and answer given. Looking to all these facts, there is no illegality in cancelling selection of the petitioner. It is urged that interview board had no authority to ask questions in the interview. 6 I am unable to agree with the aforesaid proposition. The members of the interview board can ask questions and, in fact, questions were asked to the petitioner and he replied the same. Now, protest made against asking questions by the interview board cannot be accepted more so when it goes against the petitioner. A detailed report was made by the committee constituted by the District Establishment Committee as per Annexure-R/2 dated 21.7.1997 and perusal of the report of the aforesaid committee reveals that in what manner petitioner impersonated himself in the written examination. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. bnsharma (MN BHANDARI), J. All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed. (BN Sharma) 7 PS-cum-JW