1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4293/2008 Madan Singh v. Zoological Survey of India & Ors. Date of Order :: 10th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Dr. P.S.Bhati, for the petitioner. .... The respondent No.4 was selected as Watchman with Zoological Survey of India in the year 1996. The petitioner, who too was an aspirant for appointment as Watchman, raised certain doubts about qualification of the respondent No.4 and, therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court (SBCivil Writ Petition No.1895/1998). The writ petition aforesaid came to be disposed of on 6.7.1998 in following terms:- “The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of the respondent No.4 Mr. Sattar Khan alleging that he has played fraud in obtaining the said employment as the certificates on basis of which the employment has been obtained are forged documents. Regarding the same controversy, the petition has been filed before the competent criminal court and the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of it and directed the Police Authorities to 2 investigate the matter. Further the question involved in this case is basically raises a factual controversy. It is better that factual controversy be decided by the criminal court after taking the evidence and appreciating this case. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of finally with the direction that the competent criminal court may expedite the proceedings and decide it expeditiously.” The criminal case referred in the order dated 6.7.1998 came to be concluded with an order of acquittal of the respondent No.4 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur on 18.1.2005. By this petition for writ the petitioner is claiming cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Watchman, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.4 and also initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.3, an officer of the respondent Zoological Survey of India. The allegation of the petitioner in the instant petition for writ is that the respondent No.4 is not possessing requisite qualification and the mark-sheet relating to 8th standard submitted by the respondent No.4 is forged one. 3 The petition for writ is fundamentally misconceived and is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The respondent No.4 has already been exonerated by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction, the selections in question were made in the year 1996 and there is nothing to substantiate that the respondent No.4 is usurp to the post of Watchman. The entire petition reflects absolute sadistic approach of the petitioner. The same, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.