Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1414
High Court of Delhi
GITA MITTAL & DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Khem Chand
Versus
Govt of NCT of Delhi & Another
W.P. (C) No. 2958 of 2014 & CM No. 6149 of 2014
Decided On: 20-05-2014
For the Petitioner:Raman Duggal, Sudhir Kumar, Anish Shresta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ruchi Sindhwani, ASC with Bandana Shukla, Adv. with R.P. Sharma, GI/STA, Ram Narain, GI STA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of appointment based on the belief of a false experience certificate was unjustified.
Headnote:
Experience Certificate - Appointment Denial - [Central Administrative Tribunal] - [No specific act section referenced] - The court found that the petitioner was wrongly denied consideration and appointment based on an erroneous notion that he had submitted a false experience certificate. The court directed the respondent to proceed with the appointment process and provide the petitioner with consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was denied appointment based on the belief that he submitted a false experience certificate. The court found this denial to be erroneous and directed the respondent to proceed with the appointment process and provide the petitioner with consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was wrongly denied consideration and appointment based on an erroneous notion that he had submitted a false experience certificate.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of appointment to the petitioner based on the belief that he submitted a false experience certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of appointment to the petitioner was unjustified and directed the respondent to proceed with the appointment process and provide the petitioner with consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order denying the petitioner's appointment, directed the respondent to proceed with the appointment process, and provided the petitioner with consequential benefits.
Gita Mittal, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his application being O.A.No.2068/2012.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are largely undisputed and to the extent necessary are noticed hereafter.
3. We have called for the original record of the respondents and carefully perused the same.
4. A requisition was made by the Government of NCT of Delhi – respondent no.1 herein to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB for brevity) - respondent no.2 herein resulting in publication of an advertisement no.03/07 by the respondent no.2 in the Employment News. The respondents thereby notified vacancies of 14 posts (12 in the category of unreserved and 2 in the category Scheduled Caste) of Instructor/Mathematics in the Department of Training and Technical Education of the respondent no.1. As per the advertisement, the respondents had notified the following eligibility conditions: -
5. The advertisement also informed all candidates of the following:-
“The selection of the above 14 candidates (UR 12, SC – 02) shall further be subject to the fulfilment of all eligibility conditions as prescribed by the statutory RRs and the terms and conditions of the advertisement indicated in the advertisement inviting applications and also subject to thorough verification of their identity with reference to their photographs, signatures, handwriting and thumb impression etc., on the application forms, admit card, etc. The candidature of candidate is liable to be cancelled by the user Department also, in case the candidate is found not fulfilling the eligibility conditions or for any other genuine reasons. The competent authority of the user Department shall arrange to verify the correctness of information/documents as furnished in the application form after verification of the same from the original documents. Mere inclusion of name in the result notice does not confer any right upon the candidate over the post.”
6. It is an admitted position that petitioner submitted an application as Scheduled Caste candidate; successfully appeared in the written examination and by the notice No.22 dated 6th April, 2011 was provisionally selected as one of the two scheduled caste category candidates for the post of Instructor/Mathematics apart from 12 candidates in the unreserved candidates.
As a result, the respondent no.2 forwarded the dossier of the petitioner along with the other selected candidates to the respondent no.1 for issuing the offer of appointment to the selected candidates after due verification.
7. The respondent no.1 had found the educational certificate and the caste certificate of the petitioner as genuine. We, however, are concerned with the verification effected of the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner. To support his plea that he possessed the requisite one year experience in an engineering workshop of repute, the petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 8th June, 2006 issued to him by “TANDAN Diesel Service. As per the letter head, the firm was located at 3778 Mori Gate, Delhi – 110006. The certificate dated 8th June, 2006 was in the following terms:
“Certificate
To Whomsoever It May Concern
This is to certify that Mr. Khem Chand has been working in Tandan Diesel Service since 02nd May 2003 to 13th May, 2006 as a Assistant/helper (Mech.)
His performance in this period was good. He bears a good moral character. We hope for his prosperous future.”
8. When the respondents attempted to verify the certificate at the address on the letter head, no response was received from the firm. As per the record, at this stage, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24th October, 2011 to the respondent no.1 informing that the firm which had issued the experience certificate had changed his address since the issuance of the certificate and that it was at the following address:
TANDON Diesel Service,
Shop No.3794/3,
