Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Holds Investigating Officer Cannot Create Evidence  ||  Supreme Court: NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Solely Over Co-Accused’s Disclosure  ||  SC: Tax Classification Depends on Goods' Form at Sale, not their End Use  ||  Delhi High Court: No Material Showing Delhi Police Compromised the 2020 Riots Probe  ||  Madras HC Suggests Mandatory Attachment of Properties Suspected to Be Proceeds of Corruption  ||  P&H High Court: Demolition After Lawyer Flagged Corruption Appears Aimed at Silencing Him  ||  Calcutta High Court: Contempt Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Challenge Orders or Attack Judges  ||  Orissa High Court: Marriage Need Not Be Preserved When the Relationship Has Substantially Eroded  ||  SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment    

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

MANU/CA/0783/2022

Service

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.

Tags : MISREPRESENTATION   APPOINTMENT   ELIGIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved