Om Prakash VII ORDER
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. Shri SM Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the present original application are that the applicant was initially engaged as casual Khallasi under the Railway and worked from 20.07.1978 to 22.07.1991 i.e., for about 13 years in different spells amounting to a total number of 982 working days. On the basis of a Circular dated 28.02.2001 issued by the Railway department regarding absorption of ex-casual labour from live register, the bio-data of many candidates including the applicant were called by the department for the purpose of conduction their screening test. The applicant appeared in the screening test and was declared fit in the year 2003 following which a formal appointment letter dated 23.12.2003 was issued to him. Now, the plight of the applicant is that in spite of qualifying all the tests and even issued the appointment order, the applicant is yet to be given the appointment under a Group D regular post in the respondents' organization and accordingly has preferred the instant original application.
3. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the documents on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the only discrepancy as has been highlighted by the respondents for not appointing the applicant is that there is a mismatch in the date of birth of the applicant as recorded in class 6th mark-sheet with that recorded in class 8th. Learned counsel submits that although applicant's mark sheet/transfer certificate of class 6th was verified however, that of class 8th was not. The department concerned denied the appointment on the basis of this discrepancy. In fact, the applicant's counsel submits, there was no requirement of any educational qualification as the only criteria that was fixed by the respondents for appointment of the candidates is that the candidate has to be medically fit and the applicant was already declared medically fit in Aye two category by the C.M.S. Railways on 28.02.2005 in which 8th class qualification is not necessary for absorption of ex-casual labour. Subsequently, one more appointment order was issued in favour of the applicant on 11.03.2005 but till date the applicant has not been allowed to discharge his duties.
5. With regard to the discrepancy regarding the mismatch of date of birth, the applicant's counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that the applicant is 6th fail and his date of birth is 06.08.1960 but the second transfer certificate for 8th class was declared unauthentic in which a different date of birth was recorded. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant also filed a notary affidavit on 26.10.2006 to the D.R.M. Jhansi requesting for appointment on the basis of 5th class mark sheet with medical fit in Aye two category but no action has been taken in this regard.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant filed a representation dated 06.01.2006 to GM and D.R.M. Jhansi for appointment in Group D as per the screening and medical stages which the applicant cleared successfully. A decision was taken upon that representation wherein the G.M. by way of a letter dated 09.01.2006 directed the D.R.M. Jhansi to take appropriate action on the claim of the applicant. However, no action has been taken on that direction till date.
7. Drawing attention to the supplementary affidavit dated 08.05.2015, the learned counsel for the applicant further mentions that several other similarly placed candidates have been given appointment despite the same discrepancy in their educational certificates as is their in the applicant's case. And thus, he submits, there has been a blatant violation of natural justice as the applicant has been discriminated against while other similarly placed candidates have been accorded the similar benefits as prayed by the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further refers to Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Manoj Kumar Mishra reported in 1996 (2) UPLBEC - 769 to press for his claim.
9. In view of the above submission, it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present original application may be allowed in favour of the applicant thereby directing the respondents to appoint the applicant.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, drawing attention to paragraph no. 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, contradicts the claim of the applicant submitting that even if the applicant has been declared fit in the medical test and the educational qualification stands immaterial in the instant case for appointment, the discrepancy regarding the date of birth cannot be ignored or overlooked as that amounts to submission of false information by the applicant. He also places reliance on the supplementary counter affidavit submitting that the averments made by the applicant in supplementary affidavit have been denied vehemently and thus the prayer of the applicant cannot be acceded to.
11. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the entire record including the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant carefully.
12. In the Manoj Mishra (supra case), the Court directed the authorities concerned to issue appointment letter as the petitioner in that case had completed the entire formalities. There was not any discrepancy in that case regarding date of birth. However, in this case as is clear from the record, the applicant was denied appointment on the ground that he has submitted two different certificates regarding his educational qualification in which two different date of birth were shown. Thus, observing that document submitted by the applicant is a forged one, the respondents denied appointment to the applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that the authority concerned can reject the appointment if the documents submitted by the candidate concerned are forged and accordingly, a similar step was taken by the respondents here as in this matter, one of the documents which reflected the different date of birth of the applicant was certainly a forged document and thus the respondents have rightfully denied appointment to the applicant. Moreover, the onus for submitting bona fide documents to the department under which a candidate is working rests completely with that candidate and any misrepresentation or concealment of facts by the candidate in this regard tantamount to forgery, which can never be overlooked. And as in the present case, the applicant has himself submitted the false documents for getting appointment, no relief whatsoever can be sought from a judicial forum. In view of the above, the present original application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Original Application No. 959 of 2010 is dismissed.
13. All associated MAs are disposed of accordingly.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.