IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: July 5, 2011 1. LPA No. 120 of 2011 State of Punjab and others …Appellants Versus Khuswinder Singh …Respondent 2. LPA No. 786 of 2011 State of Punjab and others …Appellants Versus Kirti Singla and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the appellant(s). Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 6 (in LPA No. 786 of 2011) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 120 and 786 of 2011 filed by the State of Punjab under Clause X of the Letters Patent against similar orders dated 25.5.2010 and 27.5.2010, rendered by the learned Single Judge. 2. The petitioner-respondent(s) had applied for the post of Teaching Fellows in various categories. While determining their LPA Nos. 120 & 786 of 2011 merit, after inquiry it was found that the experience certificates pro- duced by them were found to be bogus and the same were pro- duced only to secure the appointment. The petitioner-respondent(s) asserted before the learned Single Judge that their certificates were genuine and alternatively it was argued that even if the marks of experience are excluded still they would qualify on merit fulfilling all the conditions. In that regard reliance was placed on an earlier judg- ment of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No. 11111 of 2009, de- cided on 18.3.2010). Learned Single Judge after placing reliance on the view taken in Parminder Kaur's case (supra) has issued the fol- lowing directions:- “ Having heard learned counsel for the petition- ers and considering the assertions made on their behalf, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that let the petitioners represent to the authori- ties along with the material in support of their plea that the 'experience certificates' relied upon by them are genuine and/or they are otherwise entitled to be given appointments. The said representation(s), if any, shall be considered by respondent No. 2 in the light of the above cited decision of this Court in Parminder Kaur's case (su- pra), within a period of three months from the date of re- ceiving a certified copy of this order." 3. It is appropriate to mention that the view taken in Par- minder Kaur's case was challenged by the State of Punjab in LPA No. 927 of 2010, which has been partially allowed on 11.8.2010. In Par- 2 LPA Nos. 120 & 786 of 2011 minder Kaur's case, the learned Single Judge had issued directions to the effect that if the experience certificate submitted by her is found to be bogus then her claim for appointment was required to be considered after excluding the marks for experience and in case she qualifies in the merit list of General category, after excluding the marks for experience, she was to be given appointment and per- mitted to join her duties. Aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge had not been approved by the Letter Patent Bench in its order dated 11.8.2010, by observing in Para No. 4 and 6 as un- der:- “4. The Committee constituted by the learned Single Judge, may determine the authenticity of the certificate produced by the respondent-petitioner. If it is found to be authentic then appointment has to be given. However, it the certificate is found to be bogus by the Committee, then the respondent-petitioner becomes dis-entitled to claim any benefit with regard to her selection and ap- pointment. Then in fact that matter should be taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioner-respondent as well as the certificate issuing authority should be proceeded against as per the penal law of this country. It is well set- tled that law comes to the rescue of those who approach the court with clean hands especially under equitable ju- risdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Fraud viti- ate and dis-entitled any person from obtaining any relief. Any person if found to have approached this Court with soiled hands is rendered dis-entitled to have his case 3 LPA Nos. 120 & 786 of 2011 heard on merit and, therefore, the aforesaid direction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In support of aforesaid view, we place reliance on the judgment ren- dered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs and others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853. In para 1, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:- “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or tem- poral” 6. As a sequel to the above discussion we set aside the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge and uphold the other part of the directions. We also make it clear that if the experience certificate is found to be bo- gus then the matter shall be taken to its logical conclu- sion as already observed in para 4 of this judgment. A compliance report be sent to this Court by December 20, 2010.” 4. After the directions were issued, the compliance report was also produced before the Bench where the certificate produced by Parminder Kaur was found to be bogus. 5. Subsequently various other appeals against similar or- ders passed by the learned Single Judge were preferred by the State of Punjab, which were disposed of by us vide judgment dated 4.5.2011, passed in LPA No. 239 of 2011 (State of Punjab and others v. Davinder Kaur). In the said appeals it was argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that certain technical para-meters were being 4 LPA Nos. 120 & 786 of 2011 applied by the appellants for determining the genuineness and authenticity of the experience certificates, inasmuch as, a number of documents were sought from them such as copy of C.P.F/E.P.F and Pay deductions, record of salary paid by school and received by the teacher and proof of bank account and many other things. Fur- thermore, the said writ petitioners also placed on record a number of documents to show that their experience certificates are not bo- gus. Therefore, it was asserted that the inquiry initiated in pursu- ance to the directions issued by the Letters Patent Bench in LPA No. 927 of 2010, decided on 11.8.2010, would result into hyper techni- cal investigation requiring the writ-petitioners to prove their experi- ence certificates by proving certain peripheral facts. After noticing the said factual position, this Court issued the following directions on 4.5.2011:- "6. We have noticed the aforesaid arguments in order to highlight that extreme technicality should be avoided by the appellant to determine the authenticity of the experience certificate produced by the writ-petitioner respondent. A common sense view which a reasonable person would conceive should be adopted. However, it would not mean that if the certificate is not owned by the authority issuing the same then that it would qualify to be authentic. It would also not be regarded as authentic if the certificate issued has been owned but there is no proof that the writ petitioner-respondent actually worked and acquired experience. In any case the procedure 5 LPA Nos. 120 & 786 of 2011 adopted by the appellant cannot be adversely com- mented upon at this stage. 7. With the aforesaid observations the appeals are partially allowed to the extent that the learned Single Judge has directed the excluding of experience certificate and issuing appointment letter despite the production of a bogus certificate by a candidate. However, if the certifi- cate produced by the writ-petitioner is found to be authentic and genuine then the same should be acted upon and selection/appointment shall be given to the writ petitioner- respondent." 6. For the parity of reasoning, we dispose of instant appeals in terms of the directions issued by us in the case of Davinder Kaur (supra). A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of con- nected appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) July 5, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 6