SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

Om Prakash Koshale – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors – Respondent
WPS 2463/2014



Advocates:
['MATEEN SIDDIQUI', '', 'SANDEEP SINGH', 'NARENDRA MEHAR', 'MEHA KUMAR', 'RAHUL SHARMA', 'ANITA SURYAVANSHI', 'A G', '', 'HARSH WARDHAN', 'DEVENDRA PATEL', 'SHASHI BARETH']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 2463 of 2014

Om Prakash Koshale S/o Shri Konudas Koshale Aged About 27 Years

R/o Gram/Post - Bijaradih, Chauki Gidhpuri, P.S. Palari, Distt. Baloda

Bazar Bhatapara, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Panchayat & Rural Development, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi -

Bhawan New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

2. Collector Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband C.G.

3. Collector Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.

4. District Education Officer Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, C.G.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat Devbhog, Dist. Raipur C.G.

7. Block Education Officer Development Block Devbhog, Dist.

Gariyaband C .G.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate

For Respondent/State

Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. GA

For Respondent No.6

Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board By

08/10/2015

1.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is

heard finally.

2.

The petitioner would assail the order (Annexure-P-1), whereby the

Chief Executive Officer (for short 'CEO'), Janpad Panchyat, Devbhog,

District Gariyaband has rejected his representation for his joining on

the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III.

3.

Placing reliance on an order of appointment purportedly issued by the

concerned CEO on 24.10.2011, the petitioner preferred WPS

No.3404/2013 to seek direction to the concerned Block Education

Officer for allowing him to join as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. The writ

petition was disposed of on 18.10.2013 with a direction that in the

event, the petitioner's appointment is operative, if he submits joining

before the concerned competent authority within one month, the said

authority shall allow him to join the services and if for any valid reason

or legal impediment, he cannot be allowed to join, the authority shall

pass express order assigning reason for such dis-allowance of joining

the services. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner's representation

was considered and has been rejected by the impugned order.

4.

The recruitment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was made by the

concerned Janpad Panchayat in the year 2007-08, although the

petitioner was called for counseling, but the order of appointment was

never issued in his favour. From what has been observed by the

Janpad Panchayat in Annexure-P-1, it would appear that the order of

appointment relied by the petitioner is a fake document. It is stated that

no such order has originated from the Office of CEO, Janpad

Panchayat, Devbhog nor the General Administration Committee of the

Janpad Panchayat has recommended the petitioner's name for

appointment at any point of time. Learned counsel has tried to impress

upon the Court by pointing out the contradictions in the impugned

order. However, perusal of the order would only indicate that the CEO

has mentioned all such things, which would dis-entitle the petitioner to

claim appointment or joining on the post. If in addition to the

observation that the appointment order itself is fake, the CEO has

mentioned other reasons for disallowing the representation, it can

never be said that the order is self contradictory.

5.

The Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v.

Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Others1, held thus :

“1. 'Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or

temporal' observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England

about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of

law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on

the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a

judgment/decree — by the first court or by the highest

court — has to be treated as a nullity by every court,

whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any

court eve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top