/ / Wéa’dz/ @ .54, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ w. P. (S) No. 53$§§goo9 EETITIONERS 1. /K: Aasha D/o Parmeshwar Kurre, Shiksha Karmi Class—III, (terminated), Govt. Primary School, Sambalpur, Block —Nawagarh, Distt.~ Durg (C.G.) R/o. Patnakapa, /Tahsil~Nawagarh, Distt.—Durg (C.G.} 2. Ohm Prakash S/o Jantu Ram Govt. Verma, Primary Shaksha School, Karmi Mohtara, Class—HI, R/o. Block Nawagarh, Village ~ Distt.— Mohra, Durg Block (C.G.) — Suhela, Distt.— Raipur (C.G.) /7, 3. Dayu Ram /o. Balaram Pal, Shiksha Karmi Class—II, ovt. Primary Scl, ‘Ranbocl, Block‘ awagarh, Distt.— Durg (C.G.) R/o Distt.- Village Dung. ~ Suhela, Kwuor “57' Tahsil—Smga, V /Ku. huneshwari [wrongly mentioned in impugned order as Ku. Bhureshwari] /o Ayodhya Prasad Shikshakarmi Class»Ill [Terminated] Govt. Primary School, Khtara; Nawarh, Distt.— Durg; Distt.~ /o Village Raipur - (C.G.) Kodla, Tahsila Tilda, 5. Ku. Krishna, D/O hwar as Maikpuri, Shiksha Karmi Clss— IH, Govt. Primary Schol, Kesla, Block (C.G.) R/o. —avvagh, Village ~Rohnsi, Distt.— Blo Durg. ~Palari, Distt.—Raipur (C.G.) III, Govt. Pimary Schol, Distt.—g Makkhanpur, (C.G.) Block— R/. Navvagarh, Village — Hati, Distt.~ Durg (C.G.) W al S I G hoo N i 4 B D es ag R / Is D n a o Nar a ck 1 r o Dor o VERSUS RESPONDENTS l./State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Panchayat Avarn Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Collector, Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3./ V« Chief Executive Officer Jahpad Panchayat, Nawagarh District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’2- Counsel for the petitioners submits that appointment of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that they had produced forged experience and/or sports and/or NCC certificates. He submits that in the so-calied enquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bemetera the petitioners have not been afforded due opportunity of hearing as is required under the law and behind their back a report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer before the Collector who in turn has passed the order cancelling their appointment. He submits that all the petitioners are very poor persons and once they have been appointed after due selection and verification of their documents, their appointment ought not to have been cancelled by the respondent/Collector. He submits that the Collector is not the disciplinary authority of the petitioners and on this count as well the order passed by the Collector cancetling the appointment of the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi is bad in the eye of law. 4. 5. Supporting the order impugned it has been argued by counsel for respondent No.3 in both the cases that before passing the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioners by the Collector, due opportunity was given to them and after verifying the authenticity of the documents, the enquiry report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Ofdcer and then the Collector has passed the order cancelling their appointment as Shiksha Karmi. ln respect of the authon‘ty of the Collector, the State counsel submits that the Collector being the overall in-charge of the district is v competent enough to pass the order impugned in particular when the report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer who is subordinate to Collector. lt is argued that even in appeal the Director (Panchayat) has considered all the aspects of the case and then only the order has been passed in the appeal. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents have produced the record of the enquiry and on the basis of the same it has been argued that the petitioners have secured the appointment as Shiksha Karmi by submitting forged documents and therefore their appointment has rightly been cancelled by the authorit r concerned. 6. , Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available ii l l‘l ‘L, on record. y Mg v.3, 7. As regards petitioner No.1 in W.P. (S) 3355/2010 nameiy Ku. Aasha, allegation against her is that she has produced the forged and fabricated sports certificate indicating that she had participated in the State Level Inter School Competition held at Gwalior in the year 2004 whereas during enquiry it was found that no such sports competition was held in the year 2004 at Gwalior. Further, in the enquiry this petitioner has admitted the fact that she had produced the forged certificate. According to this petitioner, she had participated in the sports competition held in the year 1998 but by way of interpolation it has been made as 2004. Record further reveals that this petitioner had requested the authority concerned to pardon her for committing the said mistake. 8. As regards petitioner No.2 in W.P. (S) 3355/2010 namely Ohm Prakash, record reveals that he had produced the forged sports certificate indicating that in the year 2001 he had participated in the State Level Sports Competition held at Raipur whereas the finding of the enquiry officer is that in the year 2001 Raipur Zone itself was not constituted. Though this petitioner has denied having‘submitted any forged document, the documents on record clearly indicate that certificates submitted by him are forged. 9. As regards petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 6 namely Dayalu Ram, Ku. Krishna and Sanat Kumar respectively, counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners have no case, and this being so this Court is no oing into the details of the ailegations made against them. 10. As regards petitioner No.4 in W.P. (S) 3355/2010 namely Ku. Bhuneshwari, allegation against her is that she had produced forged sports and experience certificates but during enquiry it was found that the sports certificate submitted by her was genuine though the experience certificate submitted by her showing that she had taught in High School, Gandhi Gyan Mandir, Semaria was found to be forged. Report of Block Education Officer, Arang attached with the record reveals that experience certificate produced by the petitioner isvforged. 11 As regards petitioner in W.P. (S) 1168/2010 namely Shilal, allegation against him is that he had produced forged experience and NCC’ t g ..¢,_ certificates and during enquiry it was revealed that these documents wer not genuine. 12. Counsel for respondent No.3 has tiled the report of District Education Officers, Durg and Kabirdham (Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively) clearly indicating that certificate submitted by this petitioner in respectggof his participation in Kabaddi tournament is forged and likewise his experience certificate is also forged. ln respect of NCC certificate also a report Annexure R-3 given by Lt. Colonel, Commanding Officer is there on record indicating the fact that name of this petitioner has not been found in the register of NCC cadets. 13. From the above factual, aspects of the case it is apparent that for securing the job all the petitioners have procured false certificates. Record also reveals that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioners were also given an opportunity to explain their conduct. Collector and the Director (Panchayat) in their order have considered all aspects of the case and arrived at the conclusion that the documents submitted by the petitioners for obtaining job were forged. This court finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not submitted these documents. Record reveals that these documents were submitted by none else but the petitioners and that as the petitioners themselves are the beneficiaries, question of some third person submitting the documents does not arise. From some of the certificates submitted by the petitioners it is clear that even the attesting authorities are the same in all the documents and therefore it cannot be said that some third person has submitted these certificates. This Court further finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that Collector is not competent to pass the order Impugned Collector being the administrative in charge of the entire district is duly competent to take appropriate action as has been / done by him in a case of mass irregularity in the selection The petitioners who have produced false and forged documents for their selection cannot i .say that the Collector is not competent to pass any such order lt is K /,. unfortunatethat for securing the Job the persons like the petitioners are taking recourse to the false and forged documents which disentitles them to have any sympathy from the Court. e . ,‘i L 4 In View of above the petitions are Without any substance and are Ilable to be dlsmlssed They are dismissed as such lmpugned order Is ereby upheld g , Sd/— ‘W Pritinker Diwaker 1 Judge V l J 1 h