IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1510 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2010 Khub Ram …Appellant Versus Dalbir Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Pannu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant Khub Ram did not fulfil the conditions of experience as per advertisement dated 7.5.1989 (P-1). 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Dalbir Singh-respondent No. 1 filed CWP No. 12711 of 1992 challenging the appointment of the appellant- Khub Ram as Chief Inspector, Haryana Roadways in pursuance to L.P.A. No. 1510 of 2010 (O&M) advertisement dated 7.5.1989. The advertisement was issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (for brevity, ‘the Board’) for filling up five posts of Chief Inspectors in Haryana Roadways. The following essential qualifications were required to be possessed by the candidates:- “E.C. i) Graduation ii) Two years experience in Govt./Semi Govt. or Public Undertakings & Roadways Fleet. iii) Hindi upto Matric. Age 17 to 35 years” 3. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions of the advertisement that an experience of two years in Government/Semi-Government or Public Undertakings and Roadways Fleet was required. The appellant-Khub Ram did not possess the requisite experience and the certificates possessed by him were obtained from Private Transporters. 4. The learned Single Judge has believed the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition to the effect that during the tenure of Shri Anand Singh Dangi, the then Chairman of the Board, the selection on the posts of Chief Inspector, Haryana Roadways were finalised. However, on account of some political considerations, Shri Dangi tendered his resignation and the selections made by him were cancelled. After the resignation of Shri Dangi, a new Chairman of the Board took over, who held fresh interviews on 23.6.1990 and called ineligible new candidates for interview including the appellant Khub Ram. The appellant Khub Ram, being not qualified was not called for interview during the period when Shri Dangi was Chairman of the Board. The basic reason for not calling him for interview was that he did not answer the description of experience required for appointment as Chief Inspector, Haryana 2 L.P.A. No. 1510 of 2010 (O&M) Roadways. In the corresponding para (8) of the written statement, the State has accepted the averments made by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that the appointment of the appellant Khub Ram was in contravention of the requirement of the advertisement as he did not possess the required experience of two years in Government/Semi- Government or Public Undertaking and Roadways Fleet. After quashing the appointment of the appellant Khub Ram, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 be appointed. 5. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that if the experience of the appellant on the basis of certificates (R-1 and R-2) is not to be taken into account then by now he has acquired more than sufficient experience as he was appointed as Chief Inspector on 26.11.1990. According to the learned counsel it is well settled that if appointment of a person like the appellant is challenged on the ground of lack of experience and by that time he has already acquired sufficient experience then it would not constitute a basis for challenging his appointment on the ground of lack of experience. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1536 and Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1176. 6. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has opposed the submission made by Mr. Malik and argued that the appellant has made an active attempt to hoodwink the Board by producing fabricated and false documents claiming to have gained experience from a private body. He has pointed out that the outgoing Chairman of the Board Mr. Dangi did not succumb to the political pressure of the then leaders and the later 3 L.P.A. No. 1510 of 2010 (O&M) Chairman has obliged the appellant by accepting the experience from a private firm. According to the learned counsel the appointment of the appellant is fraudulent and fraud vitiate all acts - judicial, administrative or any other. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 and Union of India v. Amar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 621. He argued that in Amar Singh’s case (supra) the employee had completed more than 29 years of service and Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that if he had secured appointment on the basis of a fabricated certificate by playing fraud then he did not deserve any sympathy or indulgence from the Courts because a person who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that an attempt has been made by the appellant to overreach the selection body like the Board by furnishing documents reflecting the experience from purely private body whereas according to the advertisement the experience was required to be from a public agency. Once the appellant has secured appointment on the basis of fabricated documents, as per the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, he does not deserve any sympathy for appointment to the post of Chief Inspector, Haryana Roadways. It was in similar circumstances that Hon’ble the Supreme Court set aside the appointment of an employee in the case of Amar Singh (supra) when it was found that he had secured his appointment by producing false and fabricated certificates. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We also place reliance on the observations made by Hon’ble the 4 L.P.A. No. 1510 of 2010 (O&M) Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar, (2005) 7 SCC 690. About three decades ago, Chief Justice Edward Coke of England had proclaimed that “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or tempral”. Accordingly, if something has been obtained by playing fraud then it has to be declared as nullity and non est in the eyes of law. The aforesaid observations have been made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra). Therefore, we uphold the view of the learned Single Judge. 8. The argument of Mr. Malik that the appellant has in any case acquired experience of more than two years by working on the post would not require any detailed consideration because every case has to be decided in the facts and circumstance obtaining in that case. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ram Sarup’s case (supra) would not help the cause of the appellant because there was no element of fraud played by the selected/promoted candidate. In those cases including the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary(supra), the selection process was not vitiated on the basis of fabricated experience certificates. Therefore, those judgments will not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) November 29, 2010 JUDGE 5 L.P.A. No. 1510 of 2010 (O&M) Pkapoor 6