Del. HC: Obtaining of Voice Samples of Accused Must be in Compliance with Telegraph Act  ||  P&H HC: Peaceful Protest is Not a Penal Offence Under Section 188 IPC  ||  All HC: AO Must Consider Form 10 u/s 17 Supplied After Limitation But Before Assessment is Completed  ||  Ker. HC Issues Guidelines on Handling Digital Evidence Containing Sexually Explicit Materials  ||  Del. HC: Cyber Crimes Dissuade Aspirations of Advanced 'Digital Bharat'  ||  Del. HC: Suspension of Entity Can’t be Continued Indefinitely  ||  Del. HC: Woman Can be 'Karta' of HUF  ||  SC: Court Can’t Impose Bail Condition that Husband Must Resume Conjugal Life with Wife  ||  SC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance of Cal. HC Judgment that Adviced Adolescents on Sexual Behavior  ||  JKL HC: Court Can’t be Guided by Personal Law While Deciding Apportionment of Compensation    

Mahesh vs. Union Of India - (Central Administrative Tribunal) (09 Nov 2022)

Onus for submitting bona fide documents to the department is on a candidate and any misrepresentation or concealment of facts tantamount to forgery



The applicant was initially engaged as casual Khallasi under the Railway. On the basis of a Circular dated 28th February, 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 23rd December, 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.

In present 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. 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 dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved