1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6039/1994 Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 16/10/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.A. Katta for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** According to Shri B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel, the controversy involved in the present matter is settled out by division bench judgement of this Court in Maharaj Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.547/1998 whereby similar claim of the appellants therein was rejected. Shri R.A. Katta, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended out that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable inasmuch as the reliance of the respondents on the letters dated 9.6.1993 and 22.6.1993 is wholly misconceived because with reference to letter dated 9.6.1993, the respondents again sent communication to the Registrar, Avadh University, Faizabad for verification of 2 B.Ed. degrees of the petitioners, who vide letter dated 13.10.1993 confirmed the fact that the B.Ed. Degree was indeed obtained by the petitioners from their University and the earlier communication dated 22.6.1996 was inadvertently sent stating that such degree was not procured by the petitioners from that University. In the light of the view taken by the division bench in the aforesaid judgement, it is evident that even the letter dated 13.10.1993 on which self reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners was also considered by the division bench and it was held as under:- “We have perused the entire pleadings and also the documents filed and considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. Even at the time of hearing, we directed the learned counsel for the appellants to place before this Court the original degree certificate of B.Ed. said to have been issued by the Avadh University, Faizabad. The learned counsel for the appellants expressed his inability to do so and has argued that their certificates should be taken as genuine documents and the matter be considered accordingly on merits. As already noticed, vide letter dated 22.6.93, the Avadh University has clearly stated that the appellants did not undergo training of B.Ed. and that 3 they were not issued any degree of B.Ed. by the said University, we are of the opinion that no further proof is necessary to dislodge the case of the appellants. It is the specific case of denial by the university that the said university has issued degree certificates of B.Ed. to both the appellants. In our opinion, the certificates produced by the appellants cannot at all be said to be genuine and this Court has no option but to come to the conclusion that they have not undergone the training of B.Ed. from Avadh University, Faizabad. The appellants in our opinion, have not come to the court with clean hands. Their case is falsified by the letter dated 22.6.93 issued by the Avadh University. As already seen several opportunities were given to the appellants to show cause and notices were issued to them on 26.3.93 and 8.11.93 to clarify the position and to produce the genuine marksheet and degree. The appellants have miserably failed to do so. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition are correct and we do not find any reason to differ with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.” In the light of the above, the contention of the learned Additional Government Counsel has to be accepted that the controversy raised in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements. 4 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/