Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 23791
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, CJ, SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA, J
Smt. Kamlesh Devi Ahirwar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WA 1874/2023
Suyash Mohan Guru,
An appointment obtained through fraud is void ab initio, and there is no right to a hearing prior to FIR registration.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Appointment - Fraudulent Documents - The petitioner was appointed as Aanganwadi Worker based on false documents, leading to termination of services after a decade. The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition and directed registration of an FIR against the petitioner for fraud. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
(B) Fraud - Nullity of Appointment - The court reiterated that an appointment obtained through fraud is void ab initio, citing established legal principles that fraud vitiates all acts. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
(C) Right to Hearing - The court clarified that there is no requirement for a hearing prior to the registration of an FIR, emphasizing the statutory duty of police to register FIRs upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed in 2010 but faced termination in 2019 due to allegations of fraud regarding the BPL card of her husband. The court noted the lack of justification for the delayed termination and the fraudulent basis of the appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appointment was based on false documents and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, ordering fresh recruitment proceedings.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the appointment based on fraudulent documents and the legality of the termination after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that fraud nullifies any appointment and that the registration of an FIR does not require prior hearing, aligning with established legal principles.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Assailing the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.3197 of 2019, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Aanganwadi Worker at village Guna, Tahsil Baldeogarh, District Tikamgarh in the year 2009. The petitioner as well as other applied for the same. The petitioner secured 56 marks and the respondent No.6 obtained 50 marks. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on the said post on 11.02.2010. The respondent No.6 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer for cancellation of BPL Card of the husband of the petitioner as he has entered his name in the BPL list by playing fraud. Accordingly vide order dated 10.01.2013, the Sub Divisional Officer directed to delete the petitioner's husband name from the BPL list, against which, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2013. A writ petition being W.P.No.2429 of 2013 was filed and vide order dated 20.02.2013, this court had directed to maintain status quo regarding functioning of the petitioner on the post of Aanganwadi Worker. The said writ petition was finally disposed off vide order dated 12.07.2018 with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of the communication dated 18.11.2011 and for a period of two weeks, the protection was granted. The review application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 17.01.2019, against which, an appeal was preferred before the Collector along with an application for grant of stay but the prayer for interim relief was rejected and accordingly the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Aanganwadi Worker.
3. It is argued that once the petitioner has got an appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Worker and she also obtained 10 marks towards BPL category then by a subsequent cancellation of BPL card, there cannot be cancellation of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2010 and the termination order has been passed in the year 2019 after almost a decade without there being any justification for the same. The learned writ court has taken up the matter for analogous hearing with another writ petition being W.P.No.16107 of 2019 and has dismissed both the writ petitions. While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned writ court has further directed for registration of an FIR against the petitioner as well as against the respondent no.6 for procuring the appointment by submitting false and fabricated documents. It is argued by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer in the order dated 10.01.2013 are based upon the previous certificate which was subsequently corrected by the authorities vide Annexure P/11 without taking into consideration Annexure P/11 and has passed an order directing for cancellation of the BPL card of the petitioner's husband. The learned writ court has also failed to take note of the order dated 12.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.2429 of 2013. The appellant is basically aggrieved by the observation made by the learned writ court with respect to use of false and fabricated documents of the petitioner and directing for registration of an FIR.
4. The fact remains that a specific finding is recorded by the learned writ court that the petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The learned writ court heard the matter in analogous hearing with another writ petition being W.P.No.16107 of 2019 and at the time of hearing, a prayer is made for withdrawal of the writ petition, but the same was rejected by the writ court considering the fact that a fraud has been played in seeking appointment in the matter.
