Back
: Upholds Cancellation of Appointment Over Forged Records
The has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak (Village Employment Assistant) appointment, holding that a candidate who secures public employment through forged records cannot claim any vested right to hold such office. The single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that , and an appointment obtained through manipulation of official documents is .
The Backstory: A Certificate That Arrived Before It Was Issued
The case revolved around a contractual recruitment under the in 2010. The petitioner, Shankhpal Namdeo, applied for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at in Satna district. The last date for submitting applications was fixed as . A merit list was prepared, and the petitioner secured the top position, leading to his appointment on .
However, a complaint by the sixth respondent – the second-ranked candidate – alleged a glaring procedural irregularity: the petitioner’s application form was supposedly received on , but the computer experience certificate from attached to it bore an issuance date of . This chronological impossibility – a certificate that had not yet been issued being enclosed with an application purportedly submitted five days earlier – led the authorities to conclude that the receipt register had been backdated to accommodate the petitioner’s belated submission.
The Collector’s Inquiry and the High Court’s Remand
Following the complaint, the Chief Executive Officer of cancelled the petitioner’s appointment on . The Collector of Satna upheld this decision on appeal, relying on a sworn affidavit from the Director of Radix College confirming that the certificate was indeed issued on . The petitioner then approached the High Court in an earlier writ petition (WP No. 2978/2012), which was remanded back to the Collector with a specific direction to conduct an inquiry strictly into the preparation of the receipt register. In compliance, the Collector examined the records and concluded that the entry dated , was forged and made after the deadline to favour the petitioner. This led to the present petition.
The Petitioner’s Argument: ‘The Forgery Was Irrelevant’
Senior advocate , appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Collector had merely rubber-stamped his earlier order without conducting a proper inquiry. More critically, he contended that even if the certificate is discarded, the petitioner still topped the merit list based on his higher secondary marks (89.6% vs. 86.44% of the second candidate) and a recognized computer diploma from . Since no additional marks were awarded for the disputed certificate, the forgery was inconsequential to the outcome. Therefore, cancelling the appointment on the basis of a redundant document was arbitrary and illegal.
The Court’s Response: Fraud Is Not Quantified by Necessity
The High Court firmly rejected this line of reasoning. Justice Singh noted that the core issue was not a miscalculation of marks but the fundamental integrity of the application process. If an application contained a document that did not exist until after the cut-off date, the logical corollary is that the application itself was submitted late – and the receipt register was manipulated to hide this fact. “Fraud is not quantified by its necessity; it is defined by its deceit,” the court observed.
Invoking the ancient maxim “” (fraud and justice never dwell together), the court held that a person who secures public employment through deliberate misrepresentation cannot claim any equity. Quoting precedents from the in , , and , the bench emphasised that a judgment or order obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged at any time.
Limits of Certiorari: No Reappreciation of Evidence
The court also underscored the limited scope of its under . Citing and , Justice Singh explained that the High Court does not sit as an appellate court over findings of fact. It cannot reweigh evidence or substitute its own views unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the Collector’s finding of forgery was backed by sworn evidence – the affidavit of the college director – and was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The petitioner’s attempt to secure re-evaluation of the evidence was therefore impermissible.
Key Observations
“Fraud is not quantified by its necessity; it is defined by its deceit. The manipulation of the Gram Panchayat register to bypass the statutory cut-off date vitiates the petitioner’s appointment .”
“A candidate who secures entry through tainted or forged official records has no vested right to hold public office. The petitioner cannot be permitted to .”
“If the foundational act – the timely and honest submission of the application form – is tainted by forgery and backdating, the entire structure of the appointment collapses.”
The Final Decision
The court found no jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the appellate authority. It held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under is not meant to aid a litigant whose claim is founded on manipulated public records. The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
This ruling reinforces the principle that fraud undermines the very foundation of public employment and that the courts will not shield those who attempt to game the system through forged documents, regardless of their merit. It serves as a stern reminder that are an essential prerequisite for equitable relief.
