Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra Kumar Singhal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
1 WP-1880-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1880 of 2014
GAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.P.Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri G. K. Agrawal - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvansi - Advocate for respondents No.6 to
10.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this
petition and further be pleased to issue the appropriate writ
calling the record of the selection process from the respondents
for the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor.
(ii) That, impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 14.02.2013
appointing respondent No.6 to 10 as Malaria Technical
Supervisor and selection list Annexure P-2 to that extent may
kindly be declared as illegal and the same may kindly be
quashed.
(iii) That, a further direction may kindly be given to the
respondents to grant proper marks for work experience to the
petitioner and select and appoint the petitioner as Malaria
Technical Supervisor in place of respondent No.6 to 10.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper, may also be given to the petitioner along with costs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
2 WP-1880-2014
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the parties that today this Court
by a separate order passed in case of Nitin Gautam Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others in W.P.No.4202/2013 has dismissed the petition so far as
it relates to respondents No.7, 8 and 10 and has quashed the appointment of
respondent No.9-Garuva Bhargav and therefore, this case is also governed by
the said order.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. This Court by a separate order passed today in the case of Nitin
Gautam (supra) has held as under :-
“This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow this petition and further be pleased to issue the
appropriate writ calling the record of the selection process
from the respondents for the post of Malaria Technical
Supervisor.
(ii) That, impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 14.02.2013
appointing respondent No.6 to 10 as Malaria Technical
Supervisor and selection list Annexure P-2 to that extent
may kindly be declared as illegal and the same may kindly
be quashed.
(iii) That, a further direction may kindly be given to the
respondents to grant proper marks for work experience to
the petitioner and select and appoint the petitioner as
Malaria Technical Supervisor in place of respondent No.6
to 10.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper, mahy also be given to the petitioner along
with costs.”
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that an advertisement
was issued for recruitment to the post of Malaria Technical
Supervisor. As per the advertisement, the educational
qualification for candidate was Graduation in Science with
Biology Subject. It was also mentioned that the persons having
the work experience shall be given preference. In the note
appended to the said advertisement, it was specifically
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
3 WP-1880-2014
mentioned that the appointment shall be on contractual basis for
a period of one year which can be extended subject to good
performance by the candidate. It was also required that the
candidate applying for Malaria Technical Supervisor must have a
license to drive two wheeler vehicle and preference shall be
given to the resident of the said districts. In note No.9, it was also
mentioned that the candidate would be required to appear for
interview on his own expenses. By referring to the final result, it
is submitted by counsel for petitioner that although the petitioner
has secured maximum marks in written examination but he was
deliberately given less marks in interview, as a result he could
not compete with other candidates and was ultimately declared
unsuccessful. It is submitted that petitioner is aggrieved by the
less marks given by the Selection Committee in the interview.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
State. By referring to the note sheet, which is at page 30 of the
return, it is submitted by Shri G.K.Agrawal that since the
Selection Committee was competent to develop its own
procedure for selection therefore, the interview was conducted.
5. Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi has also supported the selection of the
respondents No.6 to 10. However it is submitted by Shri
Raghuvanshi that respondent No.6 has already left the job,
therefore, this petition so far as it relates to respondent No.6 is
concerned, has rendered infuctuous.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is made clear that this
petition shall be considered only with regard to appointment of
respondents No.7, 8, 9 and 10.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The first question for consideration is as to whether the Selection
Committee was competent to develop its own procedure for
making his selection or not ?
8. The petitioner himself has filed the guidelines which also
govern the recruitment to the post of Malaria Technical
Supervisor (MTS). The guidelines pertaining to selection reads
as under:-
“Malaria Technical Supervisor (MTS)
Selection:
Selection of the MTS will be done at the district level. A
selection committee will be formulated under the
Chairmanship of the District Collector with the CMO/DHO
and DVBDCO/DMO as members. The committee will
develop its own procedure of selection through
interview/written examination/multiple choice questionsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:71984 WP-1880-2014
etc.The vacancy would be widely advertised to get the best
available skills in the market.In tribal areas, preference
would be given to local candidates who belong to ST
category.
Training:
The MTS would be trained on the technical and supervisory
aspects of Malaria prevention and control. Modules for the
training will be developed. A 10 days induction training to
be imparted including extensive visits.Three day annual
reorientation training will also be provided to enhance the
skills found to be specifically deficient.”
9. Thus it is clear that Selection of MTS was to be done at a
District Level. A selection committee was to be constituted under
the chairmanship of the District Collector with the CMO/DHO
and DVB DCO/BMO as members. The committee was
competent to develop its own procedure of selection through
interview/written examination/multiple choice questions etc. In
the advertisement itself, it was specifically mentioned that
candidates will be required to appear for interview on their own
expenses and as per the guidelines for recruitment to the post of
Malaria Technical Supervisor, the Selection Committee had full
authority to develop its own procedure for selection through
interview/written examination/multiple choice questions etc.
10. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since petitioner
was deliberately given less marks for interview, therefore his
sum total was less than that of respondents No.6 to 10 whereas
respondents No.6 to 10 have been awarded exorbitant marks
with a solitary intention to oust the petitioner from the selection
process.
11. Considered the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for
petitioner.
12. It is well establish principle of law that in case if any
allegation of malafide or bias is made against a person, then that
person is necessary party and if the said person is not impleaded
then question of malafide cannot be considered.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another
Vs. P.P. Sharma and another, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC
222 has held as under :-
“55. It is a settled law that the person against whom mala
fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine
as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an
opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no
enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it
itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as itSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:71985 WP-1880-2014
amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity.
Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not
impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should
have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or
bias alleged against them…….”
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr.J.N. Banavalikar Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, reported in AIR
1996 SC 326 has held as under:-
“21……Further, in the absence of impleadment of the junior
doctor who is alleged to have been favoured by the course
of action leading to removal of the appellant and the person
who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour
such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in
fact i.e. ‘malice in fact’ should not be countenanced by the
Court……”
15. The Supreme Court in the case of All India State Bank
Officers’ Federation and others Vs. Union of India and others ,
reported in JT 1996 (8) S.C. 550 in para 22, has said where a
person, who has passed the order and against whom the plea of
mala fide has been taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide. The
relevant observations of the Apex Court are reproduced as under
:-
“22……the person against whom mala fides are alleged
must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors
of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and,
therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the
Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said
meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being
so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations
of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.”
Furthermore, the petitioner is alleging against the selection
committee which is a body consisting of multiple members.
Even the selection committee has not been made a party. It is
very difficult to prove allegation of malafide against a body.
Since the marks were awarded by the selection committee on the
basis of performance of petitioner in interview and in absence of
any material as well as in absence of necessary parties, this Court
is not in a position to adjudicate as to whether the members of
the selection committee had deliberately awarded less marks to
the petitioner or not ?
16. It is next contended by counsel for the petitioner that
respondent No.9 Shri Gaurav Bhargav had submitted a forged
experience certificate and inspite of that he was granted three
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
6 WP-1880-2014
marks for his past experience. It is further submitted that if a
candidate has submitted forged documents then that, by itself, it
is a serious matter requiring the rejection of his candidature.
17. It is submitted by Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi that the return filed
by respondents No.6 to 10 in W.P.4156/2013 has been adopted
by them in the present petition also. By referring to paragraph 7
of return filed in W.P.No.4156/2013, it is submitted that
respondent No.9 had submitted a certificate which was issued
with regard to volunteer services rendered by him under the
instructions of the Specialist, without there-being any written
appointment and payment.
18. Considered the experience certificate relied by the
respondent No.9 Gaurav Bhargav which has been filed as
Annexure P/9 as well as reply issued under the Right to
Information Act.
19. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and
Others Vs. Chetan Jeff, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483 has
held as under :-
“6.2. The question is not whether the offences were trivial
in nature or not. The question is one of suppression of
material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his
criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the
application form. If in the beginning itself, he has
suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal
antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how
can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted
thereafter in future ? How it is expected that thereafter he
will perform his duty honestly and with integrity ? ”
6.3. Therefore, as such the authorities were
justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for
the post of constable.
6.4. At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of
Daya Shankar Yadav (supra) is required to be referred to.
In paras 14 and 16, it is observed and held as under:
“14. Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force
Rules, 1955 relevant in this case relates to
verification. Clauses (a) and (b) of the said Rule are
extracted below:
“14. Verification. –(a) As soon as a man is
enrolled, his character, antecedents, connections and
age shall be verified in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by the Central Government
from time to time. The verification roll shall be sent
to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
7 WP-1880-2014
the District of which the recruit is a resident. (b) The
verification roll shall be in CRP Form 25 and after
verification shall be attached to the character and
service roll of the member of the force concerned.”
The purpose of seeking the said information is to
ascertain the character and antecedents of the
candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post.
Therefore, the candidate will have to answer the
questions in these columns truthfully and fully and
any misrepresentation or suppression or false
statement therein, by itself would demonstrate a
conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed
security service.
16. Thus an employee on probation can be
discharged from service or a prospective employee
may be refused employment : (i) on the ground of
unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed
from his conviction in a criminal case, or his
involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was
acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of
doubt) or other conduct (like copying in
examination) or rustication or suspension or
debarment from college, etc.; and (ii) on the ground
of suppression of material information or making
false statement in reply to queries relating to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even
if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
This ground is distinct from the ground of previous
antecedents and character, as it shows a current
dubious conduct and absence of character at the time
of making the declaration, thereby making him
unsuitable for the post.”
6.5 In State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC
746, this Court has observed that the object of requiring
information in the attestation form and the declaration
thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the
character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter
into or continue in service. It is further observed that when
a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives
false information, he cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuance in service.
6.6 In Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9
SCC 363 , while joining the training, the employee was
asked to submit an affidavit giving certain information,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
8 WP-1880-2014
particularly, whether he had ever been involved in any
criminal case. The employee submitted an affidavit stating
that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The
employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was at
this time that the employer in pursuance of the process of
character verification came to know that the employee was
in fact involved in a criminal case. It was found that the
final report in that case had been submitted by the
prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate
concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was
discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a
temporary government servant, he could be removed from
service without holding an enquiry. The said order was
challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before
a Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The
Division Bench upheld that order, which was the subject
matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal,
this Court observed and held that the question is not
whether the employee is suitable for the post. The
pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from
suppressing the information of such pendency. The case
pending against a person might not involve moral
turpitude but suppressing of this information itself
amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the
information sought by the employer if not disclosed as
required, would definitely amount to suppression of
material information and in that eventuality, the service
becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no
further trial or the person concerned stood
acquitted/discharged.
6.7 In the case of Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8
SCC 748 , in para 29.4, this Court has observed and held
that “a candidate having suppressed material
information and/or giving false information cannot claim
right to continue in service and the employer, having regard
to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has
the discretion to terminate his services. In para 29.6, it is
further observed that the person who suppressed the
material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for appointment
or continuity in service. In para 29.7, it is observed
and held that “the standard expected of a person intended to
serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other
services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
9 WP-1880-2014
omission regarding a vital information can be seriously
viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing
authority cannot be faulted.
6.8 In Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14
SCC 103 , this Court had an occasion to consider the
purpose of seeking the information with respect to
antecedents. It is observed and held that the purpose of
seeking the information with respect to antecedents is to
ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so
as to assess his suitability for the post. It is further observed
that when an employee or a prospective employee declares
in a verification form, answers to the queries relating
to character and antecedents, the verification thereof
can lead to any of the following consequences:
(SCC pp. 11011, para 15)
“15. … (a) If the declarant has answered the
questions in the affirmative and furnished the
details of any criminal case (wherein he was
convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for
want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer
him employment (or if already employed on
probation, discharge him from service), if he is found
to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the
criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to
offences which were technical, or of a nature that
would not affect the declarant’s fitness for
employment, or where the declarant had been
honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer
may ignore the fact that the declarant had
been prosecuted in a criminal case and
proceed to appoint him or continue him in
employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the
questions in the negative and on verification it is
found that the answers were false, the employer may
refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if
already employed), even if the declarant had been
cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is
because when there is suppression or
nondisclosure of material information bearing
on his character, that itself becomes a reason
for not employing the declarant.(d) Where the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
10 WP-1880-2014
attestation form or verification form does not
contain proper or adequate queries requiring the
declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal
proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of
initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the
declarations in the verification roll/attestation
form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with,
for not furnishing the relevant information. But
if the employer by other means (say police
verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the
involvement of the declarant, the employer can have
recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.” Thereafter, it is
observed and held that an employee can be
discharged from service or a prospective
employee may be refused employment on the ground
of suppression of material information or making
false statement in reply to queries relating to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even
if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
6.9 In State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018)
18 SCC 733, when the employee participated in the
selection process, he tendered an
affidavit disclosing the pending criminal case against him.
The affidavit was filed on 22-12-2012. According to the
disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending
on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However,
within four days of filing such an affidavit, a compromise
was entered into between the original complainant
and the employee and an application for
compounding the offence was filed under Section 320
CrPC. The employee came to be discharged in view of the
deed of compromise. That thereafter the employee was
selected in the examination and was called for medical
examination. However, around the same time, his character
verification was also undertaken and after due
consideration of the character verification report, his
candidature was rejected. The employee filed a writ petition
before the High Court challenging rejection of his
candidature. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the said writ petition.
The judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge directing the State to appoint the employee
came to be confirmed by the Division Bench which led
to appeal before this Court. After considering a catena of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
11 WP-1880-2014
decisions on the point including the decision in Avtar
Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, this Court
upheld the order of the State rejecting the candidature of the
employee by observing that as held in Avtar Singh (supra),
even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded
case was made, the employer would still have a right
to consider antecedents of the candidate and could
not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
6.10 After reproducing and/or reconsidering para 38.5 of
the decision in Avtar Singh (supra), in Abhijit Singh
Pawar (supra), in para 13, this Court observed and held as
under: “13. In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India,
(2016) 8 SCC 471, though this Court was principally
concerned with the question as to nondisclosure or wrong
disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5
that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a
concluded case was made, the employer would still have
a right to consider antecedents of the candidate
and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.”
6.11 Recently, in the case of Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya,
(2021) 10 SCC 136, this Court had an occasion
to consider the submission on behalf of an employee
whose services were terminated on the ground of filing a
false declaration to the effect that neither a criminal case is
pending against him nor has he been convicted by any
Court of law, that subsequently he has been granted the
benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act and
therefore his services ought not to have been terminated.
This Court has observed in paras 13 & 14 as under:
“13. Even otherwise, subsequently getting the
benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act shall not be
helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question is
about filing a false declaration on 14-4-2015 that
neither any criminal case is pending against him nor
has he been convicted by any court of law, which was
much prior to the order passed by the learned
Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of
the 1958 Act. As observed hereinabove, even in case
of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a
false declaration and/or suppressed the material
fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to
an appointment as a matter of right. 14. The
issue/question may be considered from anotherSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:719812 WP-1880-2014
angle, from the employer’s point of view. The
question is not about whether an employee
was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and
whether he has been subsequently acquitted or
not. The question is about the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of such an employee who at
the initial stage of the employment i.e. while
submitting the declaration/verification and/or
applying for a post made false declaration and/or not
disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having
involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would
have been disclosed, the employer might not
have appointed him. Then the question is
of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the
employer feels that an employee who at the initial
stage itself has made a false statement and/or not
disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the
material facts and therefore he cannot be continued
in service because such an employee cannot be
relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be
forced to continue such an employee. The
choice/option whether to continue or
not to continue such an employee always must be
given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of
decision such an employee cannot claim the
appointment and/or continue to be in service as a
matter of right.”
20. Respondent No.9 has submitted an experience
certificate dated 25.04.2006 purportedly issued by CMHO,
Shivpuri to the effect that the respondent No.9 has worked
as a Dresser in District Hospital Shivpuri from 24.01.2006
to 24.04.2006. In reply to the application filed under the
Right to Information Act, it was informed by the
concerning department that the attendance register of the
period on 24.01.2006 to 24.04.2006 does not contain the
signatures of Gaurav Bhargav. It was also mentioned that
record pertaining to services rendered by Gaurav Bhargav
was also not available in the office.
21. Accordingly, counsel for the State was directed to point
out as to whether the respondents No.1 to 5 have
adjudicated the aforesaid objections with regard to forged
certificate submitted by Shri Gaurav Bhargav or not ?
22. By referring to the various note sheets which have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
13 WP-1880-2014
filed alongwith the return, it is fairly submitted by counsel
for the respondents No.1 to 5 that there is no finding with
regard to the objection of submission of forged experience
certificate submitted by Shri Gaurav Bhargav.
23. In view of the specific return filed by Shri Gaurav
Bhargav in W.P.No.4156/2013, it is clear that he has not
worked as Dresser. An evasive return has been filed by
Gaurav Bhargav in W.P.No.4156/2013, thus it is clear that
he had merely claimed that he had worked as Volunteer
under the instructions of the Specialist without there being
any written appointment. How the CMHO or Specialist can
allow any private person to work in a District Hospital has
not been explained either by counsel for the State or by
counsel for respondent No.9. Even if respondent No.9 was
allowed to work as volunteer then how he was allowed to
work as a Dresser without there being any record as the
work of dresser is an important part of treating the wounds
of patients. Further when the objection was raised, no
decision was taken by the respondents No.1 to 5 in that
regard. Under these circumstances, it is held that the
respondent No.9 Gaurav Bhargav had filed forged
experience certificate on the basis of which three additional
marks were given to him.
24. It is really surprising that the respondent No.9 was
granted three additional marks on the ground that he is
having an experience of 2 years and 10 months whereas
even the certificate which has been filed by petitioner as
Annexure P/9 merely says that the respondent No.9 had
worked only for a period of three months i.e. 24.01.2006
to 24.4.2006. The respondent No.9 has also not claimed
that he has worked somewhere else for a period of 2 years
and 10 months. He has also not filed copy of any
experience certificate alongwith return. Therefore, it is
clear that not only the experience certificate relied upon by
the respondents No.9 was forged but the selection
committee has also wrongly given three marks for having
an experience of 2 years and 10 months.
25. Now the only question for consideration is as to
whether this Court should reassess the merit lists after
deducting the three additional marks which were granted to
the respondent No.9 or whether the finding of forged
document by itself would make respondent No.9 ineligible
to participate in his selection process.
26. Playing fraud on the selection committee or filing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7198
14 WP-1880-2014
forged documents is a serious matter which cannot be
ignored. It is not a simple case of a wrong award of three
marks only on the basis of some genuine documents. Fraud
vitiates everything. Therefore, instead of reducing three
marks from the total of respondent No.9 which was
awarded to him while preparing the merit list, this court is
of the considered opinion that since the respondents No.9
had filed a forged experience certificate, therefore his
candidature as well as selection is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, selection of respondent No.9 Shri Gaurav
Bhargav is hereby quashed and the post held by Shri
Gaurav Bhargav is hereby delcared vacant. Shri Gaurav
Bhargav will stop performing work as MTS with
immediate effect.
27. Now the next question of consideration is as to whether
respondents should be allowed to reprepare the merit list
on the basis of marks obtained by candidates or not. Since
one of the contention of counsel for petitioner is that he was
deliberately awarded less marks, therefore in the fitness of
things, this Court does not find it fit to direct the
respondents to award appointment to the petitioner on the
post which was held by Shri Gaurav Bhargav. Therefore,
the post which was held by Shri Gaurav Bhargav is
declared as open for fresh recruitment.
28. Petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated
above.”
5. Therefore this petition is also disposed of in terms and conditions of
the order passed in the case of Nitin Gautam (supra) and since appointment
of respondent No.9 has already been quashed, therefore, no separate order in
that regard is required in the present case.
6. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed of .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 01-04-2025
10:34:12
[ad_1]
Source link