IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 12510 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINU S.NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.C.N.SUKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ALAPPATT BHAVAN, KIDANGOOR POST, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SECONDARY SWITCHING AREA, KOTTAYAM. 2. SRI.K.V.S.NAIR, DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, (MARKETING) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KOTTAYAM. 3. JOJO LUKOSE, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, KYPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. (KARAKKATTU COMMUNICATIONS, KOTTAYAM). 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.7.2008 IN W.P.(C)) ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1&2 SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) FOR R3 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT INVITING EOI DT.12.12.2006. P2: TRUE COPY OF MBA CERTIFICATE DT.28.2.1995. P2(a): TRUE COPY OF B.Sc. CERTIFICATE DT.2.6.1993. P3: TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL TRADE MARK REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DT.20.4.2000 (LAKSHMI). P3(a): .DO. (ALPRO). P3(b): .DO. DT.25.4.2000 (LAKSHMI). P3(c): .DO. DT.22.3.2000 (ALPRO). P3(d): TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT.15.1.2007. P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SALES TAX REGISTRATION DT.2.8.2001. P5: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION OF PETITIONER DT.18.1.2007. P6: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT.2.2.2007. P7: TRUE COPY OF SUPPLY OF INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005 DT.14.3.2007. P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.2.1.2007 ISSUED BY R1. P9: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.2.1.2007 ISSUED BY R1. P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.17.1.2007 OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL ENGG. MARKETING. P11: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT RECEIVED THROUGH RTI ACT. P12: TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF R3 DT.1.12.2000 RECEIVED THROUGH RTI ACT. P13: TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF R3 DT.2.12.2006 RECEIVED THROUGH RTI ACT. P14: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.30.1.2007. P15: TRUE COPY OF INDEX OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE TENDER. P16: TRUE COPY OF LIST OF UNIVERSITIES. P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM THE C.P.I.O. IN THIS REGARD OF THE U.G.C. P18: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY SRI.K.C.JOSEPH, KEY SYSTEMS, ALAPPUZHA. P19: TRUE COPY OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR THE YEAR 2005. P19(a): .DO. 2006. P20: TRUE COPY OF TENDER APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY R3 DURING THE YEAR 2002 BEFORE THE BSNL AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF INDEX OF THE EOI FOR SHEET KTM 05 AND KTM 07 FRANCHISEE AREA. R1(b) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF PAGES 52 TO 68 OF THE EOI OF PETITIONER FOR KANJIRAPPALLY FRANCHISEE AREA TO PROVE HIS EXPERIENCE. R1(c) SERIES: .DO. 52 TO 66 .DO. VAIKOM .DO. R1(d): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ACTUALLY ENCLOSED BY PETITIOENR IN THE EOI WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM EXT.P3(d). R1(e) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN EXT.P5. R3(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PAGE 1 OF SECTION 11 OF THE TENDER. R3(b): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADVERTISEMENT IN PAGE 2 OF EMPLOYMENT NEWS DT.19-25.5.2007. R3(c): .DO. PAGE 3 .DO. R3(d): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF QUALIFICATION OF WELFARE OFFICER IN RULE 4. R3(e): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MARKLIST ISSUED BY INSTITUTION. R3(f): .DO. .DO. R3(g): .DO. .DO. R3(h): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADVERTISEMENT DT.29.5.2007 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. R3(i): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER SENT BY R3 DT.5.6.2007. R3(j): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADVERTISEMENT NO.14 OF EMPLOYMENT NEWS WEEKLY. R3(k): TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN PAGE 16. R3(l): .DO. PAGE 25. R3(m): .DO. PAGE 56. R3(n): .DO. PAGE 57. R3(o): .DO. PAGE 59. R3(p): .DO. PAGE 59. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.12510 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P.(C) was filed challenging the appointment of third respondent by first respondent as their franchisee for sale of sim cards, recharge coupons etc. Petitioner's allegation is that one of the qualifications prescribed by first respondent for appointment of franchisee is educational qualification which is graduation. Though the third respondent is not a graduate from any recognised University, he produced a bogus degree certificate issued by an agency in Kottayam. The UGC confirmed that the degree certificate produced by third respondent is not from a recognised University and is therefore, a bogus one. Standing Counsel appearing for BSNL submitted that company was unaware of the fact that the degree certificate produced by third respondent was not from a recognised University. His further argument is that third respondent has all other qualifications such as experience in business, turnover etc., which petitioner did not have, even though petitioner is a graduate. Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that there is no requirement in the notification that the degree should be from a recognised University. He has 2 in fact relied on the additional documents produced which show that in similar cases those inviting applications specifically mention that the degree should be from a recognised University. I do not think the failure of the first respondent to mention that the degree should be from a recognised University entitles the third respondent to produce a bogus degree certificate. In fact to my mind, it is absolutely unnecessary to state that degree certificate should be from a recognised University. When graduation is prescribed as a qualification, it goes without saying that the degree obtained should be from a recognised University and should not be bogus one. Therefore, I reject this contention. 2. In order to prevent production of bogus degrees any more, this court ordered action against the agency which issued it. However, the said order is under appeal pending before Division Bench. However, it is clarified by Division Bench that W.P. can be heard and disposed of. 3. It is clear that both the petitioner and third respondent did not have all the qualifications prescribed by the first respondent. While the petitioner lacks business experience, third respondent does not have the required educational qualification. However, third respondent is already appointed by BSNL on the assumption that the degree certificate produced by him is a valid one. I do not think there is any justification to interfere with the 3 award of contract to the third respondent because he is otherwise experienced in business and his lack of educational qualification does not appear to be affecting the business for which he is appointed. Further, petitioner in any case is not qualified for the post. Therefore, I feel the appointment of the third respondent by first respondent does not call for any interference. The first respondent is a Government of India undertaking which was misled by third respondent by producing a bogus degree certificate. I am constrained to observe that the persons in first respondent who handled the matter either colluded with the third respondent or they have acted indifferently or atleast did not show required care to screen the certificates produced to prove educational qualification of the applicant. Since I find that the third respondent is ineligible and obtained the contract through fraud and the W.P.(C) is dismissed only because petitioner is also not eligible, I feel cost should be ordered against the third respondent. I, therefore, dismiss the W.P.(C) but with cost of rupees twenty five thousand to third respondent. Since petitioner is not entitled to the cost, I direct the Registry to forward the amount to People's Council for Social Justice which is engaged in public welfare activities. A Demand Draft taken in favour of People's Council for Social Justice should be deposited by third respondent before the Registry within two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this 4 judgment, failing which Registry will intimate the matter to this court for proceeding for contempt against third respondent. As and when D.D. is received, Registry will forward the same to the People's Council for Social Justice, Ernakulam. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms