:/0-n. ®8SB.@f 8IKISI. s BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. \\ OF 2010 RESPONDENTS @..^ PETITIONER :- Shilal S/o Girwar Ram Sahu, aged about 25 years, Shiksha Karmi Class- 3 (Terminaed) govt. Primary School, Kunwa; Nawagarh, Resident of village Khati, Post Karesara, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretary; Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas Vibha, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Durg, ^y^/^y' District Durg (C.G.) 3. ' Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat - Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA >.y/ ^M§/ ^. ^M^ ^s^ \r.-'A.^'y T'y / '^•" liiBiaa v\ y \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3355 of 2009 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS Ku. Aasha and five others State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition (S) No. 1168 of 2010 PETITIONER Shilal VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Sudhir Verma counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Smitha Ghai PL fqr respondents 1 and 2. Shri Y.S. Thakurcounsel for respondent N6. 3 in W.P.(S) 3355/2010 and Shri Akhilesh Kumarfor respondent No.3 in W.P. (S) 1168/2010. O R DE R ;; (3.12.2010) Since the order under challenge in both the aforesaid writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by?this common order. 2. What is under challenge in these petitions is the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director (Panchayat) State of Chhattisgarh dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Collector, Durg cancelling the appointment ofthe petitioners as Shiksha Karmi Grade III. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.12.2006 issued by Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, the petitioners along with some other candidates had applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III and after selection they were appointed on the said post on 20.7.2007. After the petitioners had joined their services, all of a sudden the order dated 21.7.2008 has been passed by the Collector cancelling fheir appointment as Shiksha Karmi. T -—2. 4. 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-called 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 respondenVCollector. He submits that the Collector is not the disciplinaryauthority ofthe petitioners and on this count as wel' the order passed by the Collector cancelling the appointment of the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi is bad in the eye of law. 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 Officer and then the Collector has passed the order cancelling their appointment as Shiksha Karmi. In respect of the authority of the Collector, the State counsel submits that the Collector being the overatl in-charge of the district is competent enough to pass the order impugned in particular when the report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer who is subordinate to Collector. It is argued that even in appeal the Director (Panchayat) hgs 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 authority concerned. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. \ i<~..:'a";.y/ .^ s 3- 7. As regards petitioner No.1 in W.P. (S) 3355/2010 namely Ku. Aasha, altegation 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 enquiryAhis 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 fbrged. 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 not going into the details of the allegations 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 genifine 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 is forged. . 11. As regards petitioner in W.P. (S) 1168/2010 namely Shilal, allegation against him is that he had produced forged experience and NCC IW^OtT^BST+nrt* -(-/- certificates and during enquiry it was revealed that these documents were not genuine. 12. Counsel for respondent No.3 has filed 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 respectrof his participation in Kabaddi tournament is forged and likewise his experience certificate is also forged. In 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 perso 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 say that the Collector is not competent to pass any such order. It is unfortunate.that 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. ,^ •-S'-. 14. In view of above, the petitions are witbout any substance and are liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed as such. Impugned order is hereby upheld. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ? <!