IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP 3337 of 1985 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 24, 2008 RAJINDER SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR ETC. ...... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Nemo. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Rajinder Singh, petitioner, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ or direction for quashing order dated 13.3.1985 (Annexure P-2) whereunder the diploma certificate of the petitioner for Stock Assistant Course has been withdrawn/cancelled. As per the pleadings, the petitioner possessed the certificate of Matriculation standard examination from All India Vidwat Sammelan, Aligarh (for short 'AIVS'), which made him an eligible candidate for CWP 3337 of 1985 2 seeking admission to the Stock Assistant Course. In the year 1978-79, the petitioner, accordingly, applied for admission to the said course and was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The certificate, as possessed by the petitioner, was submitted. No objection was raised by the members of the Committee at the time of the interview and the validity of the certificate was not disputed. After completion of formalities for seeking admission, the petitioner completed the course and was asked to fill up his annual examination form. At that point of time also, the original certificate was checked and verified by the University authorities. The petitioner, accordingly, was issued the roll number and was allowed to take the examination for the said course. He was declared pass. On the basis of the certificate issued by the respondent-University, the petitioner applied for a Government job and was appointed to the post of Stock Assistant. In January, 1985 i.e. after about 6/7 years, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the University intimating that the admission had been sought on the basis of the certificate projecting it to be a matriculation certificate which, however, was not issued by a recognized University or Board. Under these circumstances, the show cause notice was issued as to why the diploma certificate issued by the University, on the basis of the certificate issued by AIVS, be not cancelled and forfeited. A reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner, which was to the effect that the certificate was presented at various stages of admission. No objection was ever raised. The petitioner CWP 3337 of 1985 3 had successfully passed the course undertaken at Hisar and, therefore, there was no legal reason to cancel the diploma certificate and marks- sheet issued to the petitioner. In view of these facts, an apprehension has been shown in the petition that the services of the petitioner would be terminated. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 through Registrar, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, to the effect that the required qualification for seeking admission to the course of Stock Assistant was Matriculation, however, a certificate from the recognized institution could only be accepted. Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the petitioner to disclose that the institution from where he had obtained the matriculation certificate was not a recognized one. The case of respondents No.1 and 2 further is that inquiries were made from Jabalpur University and the University had informed that AIVS had only been recognized for its intermediate examination. Even that recognition was, subsequently, withdrawn by the Jabalpur University and, in the result, the Matriculation certificate from AIVS clearly had been issued by an institution that was not a recognized one. It has, therefore, been pleaded that because the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted to the Course, therefore, the University was well within its right to cancel or withdraw the said certificate. The certificate could not be checked at an earlier stage because there was a huge rush of applicants, who had submitted applications for admission to the course of Stock Assistant. The inquiries could be made only at a later stage and, on disclosure of true CWP 3337 of 1985 4 facts, the impugned action was proposed. Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana (respondent No.3) has also filed a written statement giving out that the petitioner was appointed as a Stock Assistant on adhoc basis on 12.9.1979 and continued as such till the filing of the written statement. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of the diploma certificate. The Haryana Agricultural University vide communication dated 13.3.1985 had informed respondent No.3 that the Matriculation certificate on the basis of which diploma course had been undertaken by the petitioner, was not found to have been issued by a recognized University/Board established by any State Government. In this situation, the diploma certificate had been cancelled. I have gone through the pleadings and have considered the issues involved. There was an order to maintain status quo regarding service till further orders, which is continuing till date. In the result, it seems that the petitioner has continued to be in service. The facts show that the petitioner took admission to the course of Stock Assistant in the year 1978-79. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the certificate available with the petitioner was presented and at that point in time, was accepted. It has further not been disputed that the petitioner completed the course and was declared pass and, on the strength of the certificate issued by the respondent-University, was given employment. It has further not been disputed that from 1978- 79 till January, 1985, no action was taken by the University. The only explanation for delay is that at the time of admission, there was a rush of CWP 3337 of 1985 5 applicants seeking admission and, therefore, the necessary inquiries could not be made. The explanation of the respondent-University for the delay of 6 years, surely, cannot be accepted. The University is expected to make inquiries within a reasonable period, i.e., during the currency of the course undertaken by a student. The University has not placed on record any document to indicate the conditions to which the students were subjected to. It has not been denied that the certificate held by the petitioner had been presented at the time of entry in the University to undertake the course. It is not the case of the University that the certificate itself was a forged document. The clock, in the facts and circumstances given hereinabove, cannot be reversed, particularly when it is the admitted case that the petitioner had passed the course of Stock Assistant successfully, after completion of the course. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order dated 13.3.1985 (Annexure P-2) is, accordingly, quashed. No order as to costs. July 24, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE