CWP No. 16190 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16190 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 09, 2010 Bhag Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.10.2009 Annexure P-9 whereby, the services of the petitioner who was serving as Teaching Fellow were terminated. Challenge is also to report furnished by the Committee dated 23.08.2010 Annexure P- 10. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner sought appointment as a Teaching Fellow and for that purpose relied on experience certificate. Subsequently, the experience certificate having been found to be forged/bogus, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order Annexure P-9. Certain developments took place thereafter as number of cases of the nature were filed. This Court found that there was no relevant basis to term the experience certificate as bogus. A Committee was CWP No. 16190 of 2010 2 constituted. The Committee, vide order Annexure P-10, has held that the certificate of experience furnished by the petitioner is fake/bogus. 3. Case of the petitioner has been dealt with in para no. 4.0 of Annexuer P-10. The committee has verified the record produced by the School-respondent no. 4 and has again come to the conclusion that the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner indeed was forged. For coming to the said conclusion, the resolution register, attendance register and salary fund register have been taken into account. In the resolution register, name of the petitioner finds mention on the last page, which has been pasted in the register and, therefore, it has been found to be suspicious. The attendance register is not complete. So far as salary fund register is concerned, on a query of the Court, the Court has been informed that the salary was paid in cash. 4. Considering the fact that order Annexure P-10 has been passed after taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances, and parameters, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. While the petitioner asserts that the experience certificate is not forged and is genuine, the respondents on verification of documents have held it to be forged. Disputed questions of facts have arisen. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy. 09.09.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?