Opportunity for enquiry may not be necessary when facts are admitted and no prejudice is caused.

The petitioner, who was appointed as a Constable in the U.P. Police, has sought the quashing of the order dated 7th September, 2007 of passed by the Commandant, 45th Bn. P.A.C. Aligarh by which his selection has been set aside on the ground that he had furnished a forged High School Marksheet and, accordingly, his name has also been struck off from the rolls.

2. The impugned order mentions that while seeking appointment, the petitioner had submitted the High School markshet of the year 2000 with Roll No. 0838447 in which he was shown to have passed with second division and 15th December, 1984 as his date of birth. On verification of the said marksheet, the Deputy Secretary of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, which Board had conducted the High School Examination, in his report dated 31st August, 2007 informed the Department that the date of birth of the petitioner entered in the records of the Board is actually 15th December, 1986 and not 15th December, 1984 and that the petitioner had also passed the Intermediate Examination in 2002 and the date of birth of the petitioner was also recorded as 15th December, 1986 in the College records. The order further mentions that the petitioner would only be 17 years and 16 days at the time of selection according to the actual date of birth, i.e., 15th December, 1986, and even if two years relaxation for OBC candidates is provided to the petitioner, then too he would not be between 18 years and 22 years at the time of selection which was the age requirement for this category. The order further mentions that only in order to secure employment, the petitioner filed a forged High School marksheet to show that his date of birth is 15th December, 1984. The selection of the petitioner has, therefore, been found to be void ab-initio and, accordingly, it has been cancelled and his name has been struck off from the rolls of the Police.

3. The sole contention advanced by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 7th September, 2007 should be set aside for the reason that it was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajbeer Singh (Constable 618/946) v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (6) ADJ 161.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when it is admitted to the petitioner that his correct date of birth is 15th December, 1986 and the petitioner has not controverted the statement made in the impugned order that while securing employment the High School marksheet with date of birth recorded as 15th December, 1984 was submitted by him, it was not necessary to give any opportunity to the petitioner.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The sole submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it was obligatory for the authorities to have given opportunity to the petitioner to place his version before cancelling his selection and deleting his name from the rolls.

7. It cannot be doubted that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula and that its application will depend upon the fact situation obtaining therein. The said principles cannot also be applied in vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. This is what has been held by the Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 273; N.K. Prasad v. Government of India and others, (2004) 6 SCC 299; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409 and in Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 337.

8. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, the Supreme Court laid the exception that "if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible",