Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

I.A. No.6426 of 2018

1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is allowed. The review application shall be treated to be within time.

C. Review No.327 of 2018

2. After we heard the matter at length, we pointed out to Shri Azeem, learned counsel for the applicant, that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, yet he insisted that the judgment in the L.P.A. has been delivered against record and the same error existed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge where also the review petition was rejected. However, at the insistence of Shri Azeem, we have examined the records thoroughly.

3. From the record of the writ petition, we find that the petitioner Gita Devi in her pleadings has clearly asserted that she had not filed any Matriculation or Intermediate certificate and that she had claimed her appointment as a Vikas Mitra only on the strength of a Class-8th certificate. The State came up with a counter affidavit and categorically brought on record as Annexure-E a copy of the application form filled up by the petitioner bearing her photograph which was also countersigned by her. The said application form, in the column of educational qualifications, categorically mentions Matriculate and Intermediate. The averment to that effect was made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit.

4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder and in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 9 of the rejoinder, while giving a reply, stated that she was only Class-8th pass and that the certificates of Matriculation and Intermediate had been interpolated and were not her certificates. In effect, she denied the Matriculation and Intermediate certificates, but nowhere in the entire rejoinder, including the aforesaid paragraphs, has she denied the application form which is the first document of Annexure-E at page 60 of the counter affidavit filed by the State.

5. We are, therefore, more than convinced that the application form was moved by the applicant fraudulently mentioning her educational qualification in the application form as Matriculate and Intermediate, inasmuch as, she has not denied the said application form to be that which had been moved for the purpose of engagement. We may further add that the qualifications required were Matriculate and Intermediate and in the event a female candidate was not available with the said qualifications then the same was relaxable in respect of a Class-8th pass candidate. The filing of the Matriculate and Intermediate certificates along with the application form, in our opinion, will not inure to the benefit of anyone except the applicant. She appears to have attempted to obtain her employment on the basis of such certificates. Later on, it appears, she has changed her stand and started claiming her qualification to be on the basis of a Class-8th pass certificate. In either of the two events, it was the applicant who was the beneficiary of the manipulations. The intention, therefore, was to somehow or the other secure the employment which was noting else but a clear motivated fraudulent act, the beneficiary whereof was the applicant herself. The plea that someone else had interpolated or inserted the documents along with the application form is an imaginary plea which is not founded on any evidence or any material on record.

6. We had also pre-warned Shri Azeem that in the event we ultimately hold that there was a clear manipulation on the part of the petitioner, we may propose to take appropriate action in the matter, yet he insisted on justifying the cause. However, after having realized that the insistence may invite penalty, Shri Azeem along with Shri Akshay Lal Pandit prayed that they may be permitted to withdraw the application.

7. In order to further remind the learned counsel of their duties and ethical conduct in the matters of conducting cases before the Court suffice would be to men