IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 4164 of 2008 Between: 1. The Special Commissioner & Director of Survey & Land Records, Hyderabad. 2.The Regional Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records, Kakinada, EG District. 3.The Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .... PETITIONERS AND Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Occ: Chainman, (Terminated from service), R/o Moghal Rajapuram, D.No.32/13/44, Presently residing at C/o P.Raja Rao, Sundarayyanagar, Vijayawada-15, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 136 of 2004, dated 07-09-2007 and quash the same as perverse an in excess of the jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES -II Counsel for the Respondent: G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.4164 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ of Certiorari is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 07.09.2007, in O.A.No.136 of 2004, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), and quash the same as perverse and in excess of jurisdiction. 3. Petitioners are the respondents and the respondent is the applicant, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. It appears, on 24.06.1989, the respondent was initially appointed as a Chainman on temporary basis, on compassionate grounds, vide G.O.Ms.No.687, G.A.D., dated 03.10.1977, posted to work at Mandal Revenue Officer’s office at Kapileswarapuram and joined duty as such on the forenoon of 28.06.1989; that, at the time of appointment, it was recorded that the respondent had passed VIII class; that, after a lapse of nearly 12 years, when the petitioner No.1 had instructed all the concerned authorities to verify the educational qualifications of all the employees, on 25.09.2000, the respondent had produced a Transfer Certificate, issued by the Headmaster, A.G.K.M. High School, Gudivada; that eventually, it was found that the said Transfer Certificate was false; that, thereafter, of course, after 17 years of service, the petitioner No.3 had initiated departmental proceedings and removed the respondent from service on 20.02.2002 for the alleged fraud played on the department; that challenging the same, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the petitioner No.2; that the petitioner No.2, vide order, dated 21.02.2003, confirmed the order of removal, passed by the petitioner No.3; that challenging the orders, dated 20.02.2002, passed by the petitioner No.3, and 21.02.2003, passed by the petitioner No.2, the respondent had approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.136 of 2004, which was disposed of, having heard both the counsel, by the impugned order, dated 07.09.2007, instructing the respondent to make fresh application to the petitioners concerned who will re-consider his case afresh in view of his long years of service and accommodate him in the manner just and legal and that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of that order. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. No doubt, production of false certificate would disentitle a person either entering into an educational institution or obtaining employment in any Government service. 6. As a matter of fact, and as held by the apex Court, such fraud would tantamount to a fraud played on the Constitution and such a person should be denuded from all the benefits by virtue of production of such fraudulent certificate. In other words, it amounts to deprivation of a genuine candidate either of an appointment into Government service or of entering into an educational institution. On that score, in fact, the case of the respondent deserves to be rejected, but a second look at the issue reminds us that the very employment of the respondent was on compassionate grounds viz., consequent on the death of his father. 7. Further, it is to be seen that the employment also does not really elevate the status of the respondent, inasmuch as, the same was not either an administrative post or a post with some authority. After all, the post of Chainman is a Last Grade Service, in the survey department. 8. Another aspect to be remembered is that the respondent had put in 17 long years of service in the department. Therefore, under the above circumstances, we are bound to hold that the respondent had obtained his employment by dubious methods, but, having regard to background and nature of the employment and also the long years of service in the capacity of Chainman, we feel it appropriate to agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Consequently, we give liberty to the respondent to make a representation afresh, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such representation being made, the competent authority shall consider his case, keeping the above factors in mind, and if any appointment is made, the same shall be treated as appointment afresh, erasing the entire past service for all purposes. The said exercise of consideration, as directed above, shall be completed, on priority basis, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation, by the respondent. 9. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA --------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 HSD