1. Appointment as principal cancelled for obtaining caste certificate by misrepresenting permanent residence to claim OBC status. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2004 Supreme(SC) 1788
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. KHARE, CJI., S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another - Appellants
Versus
Girdharilal Yadav - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2785 of 2004. (Arising out of S.L.P. [C] No. 17481 of 2003)
Decided on : 28-04-2004
Fraud vitiates every solemn act. When an appointment is obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and the candidate has been granted a fair opportunity to be heard, the flexible principles of natural justice do not necessitate further hearings to justify the cancellation of the appointment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Section 58 - Facts admitted need not be proved - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Principles of Natural Justice - Not to be put into a strait-jacket formula - Application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case; if a party, after proper notice, chooses not to appear, they cannot later claim a lack of fair opportunity (Para 11).
(B) Fraud - Vitiates every solemn act - Fraud and justice never dwell together - Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when a party makes representations known to be false and injury ensues; misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud (Para 12).
(C) Administrative Law - Appointment and Cancellation - Where a candidate is found guilty of fraud by concealing material facts to obtain a reserved category appointment, and has been provided a show cause notice and opportunity for a personal hearing, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to sustain the cancellation of appointment (Paras 11, 12).
Facts of the case:
A candidate applied for a reserved category post by submitting a caste certificate from a state where he was not a permanent resident. He concealed his permanent residential address in another state where his community was not recognized as belonging to the reserved category. Following an inquiry by the district administration, it was found that the candidate had furnished false and inaccurate information to obtain the certificate. The appointing authority cancelled the appointment after issuing a show cause notice and providing a personal hearing. The lower courts set aside the cancellation on the grounds that a full inquiry had not been conducted, despite the candidate's admitted residency status.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the candidate had committed an act of fraud by misrepresenting his residency to obtain a caste certificate for a reserved category appointment. It was held that since the candidate had been given opportunities to show cause and be heard by both the appointing and appellate authorities, the requirements of natural justice were fulfilled.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of an appointment based on fraudulent misrepresentation requires further rigorous inquiry under the principles of natural justice when the candidate has already been given an opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of natural justice are flexible and not a rigid formula. Given that the facts regarding residency were admitted and fraud was established, and that a fair opportunity for a hearing had been provided, further hearings were unnecessary. Since fraud vitiates every solemn act, the cancellation of the appointment was justified.
Result: Civil appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: no further hearing needed due to fraud. Respondent: could have shown appointment was as open category candidate. (Para 10 )
3. Fraud vitiates every act; natural justice principles flexible and not stretched too far; no further hearing necessary. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Fraud vitiates everything; admitted facts need not be proved; natural justice not rigid and may be dispensed with for fraud. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; no costs. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Under what circumstances can the principles of natural justice be dispensed with?
When a party is guilty of fraud or when facts are admitted, no further hearing is necessary; natural justice cannot be cast in a straitjacket. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What is the legal effect of admitting facts in a proceeding?
Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. (Para 11 )
8. Does a fraudulent misrepresentation justify cancellation of an appointment without a full disciplinary enquiry?
Yes, fraud vitiates every solemn act, and an appointment obtained by fraud can be cancelled without further opportunity. (Para 12 , 13 )
ORDER :
V.N. Khare, CJI.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2003, passed by the High Court of Gujarat, summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, questioning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11th December, 2002, whereby and whereunder the order of the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan dated 10th October, 1997, cancelling the offer of appointment of the respondent herein as Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rewari, in the State of Haryana was quashed.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
4. The respondent herein worked as P.G.T. (Maths) teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jammu, from 22nd September, 1981 to 22nd July, 1985. On and from 23rd July, 1985 to 26th June, 1986, he again worked as P.G.T. (Maths) teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lawrence Road, New Delhi, of the appellants' society. Yet again, from 26th June, 1986 to 26th July, 1994, he worked in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rewari, Haryana. Thereafter, he had been working in one of the Kendriya Vidyalayas at Kota, Rajasthan. His permanent address is said to be Village Dhani Shobha, P.O., Ahrod, District Mahendragarh in the State of Haryana.
5. It is not in dispute that by a Resolution dated 10th October, 1993, the Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of India, issued a common list of Other Backward Class effected from 8th September, 1993 in relation to fourteen States; wherein Ahirs/Yadavs in the State of Haryana did not find place. Only on 6th August, 1994, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification in terms whereof the persons belonging to Ahirs/Yadavs were included in the list of Other Backward Classes [for short, "O.B.C."]. The respondent, at the relevant time, as noticed above, was working at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kota, Rajasthan. Ahirs/Yadavs were included as O.B.C. in four States, including the State of Rajasthan by the Government of India in terms of a Resolution dated 19th October, 1994.
6. An advertisement was issued for appointment for 92 posts of Principals of Kendriya Vidyalayas out of which 25 posts were reserved for O.B.C. candidates. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said advertisement, the respondent applied for the post as an O.B.C. candidate on 28th March, 1995. Along with the said application, he also annexed a caste certificate showing that he belonged to the O.B.C. category. Relying on the basis of the said certificate produced by him at the Air Force Station, Jamnagar, Gujarat, he was offered an appointment by the appellants herein. However, later on, it was found that the said caste certificate did not satisfy the requirement of law and he had furnished false and inaccurate information and upon concealing his permanent residential address in Haryana.
7. It is not in dispute that so far as the State of Haryana is concerned, at the relevant point of time, Ahirs/Yadavs were not treated as O.B.C. An enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate wherein it was found that the respondent belonged to the State of Haryana and not the State of Rajasthan and, thus, was not entitled to obtain the said certificate.
8. A show case notice was issued to him on 12th June, 1997 asking him to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled. On consideration of the show cause filed by the respondent and upon taking into consideration the reports of the concerned authorities and further upon giving the respondent an opportunity of personal hearing by an order dated 10th October, 1997, his appointment as a Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was cancelled by the competent authority of the appellant.
9. The respondent herein filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by an order dated 15th October, 2001, the same was disposed of directing him to prefer an appeal against the said order dated 10th October, 1997; pursuant whereto he preferred an appeal. The appellate authority also gave the respondent a
