Civil Writ Petition No.14272 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 27, 2011 Tejpal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vipin Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. 910 posts of Driver were advertised on 6.7.2007 in Dainik Jagran. The petitioner claims that he was selected by the Selection Committee and offered appointment on temporary basis as heavy vehicle driver class “B” on contract/daily wages basis on 10.8.2007. The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Driver prior to the closing date as referred to above. On 19.6.2009, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice that his licence issued by the Licensing Authority Ranchi was found fake on verification. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 19.5.2009 that his licence is from Mathura instead of Ranchi, which was inadvertently mentioned in the application form. The petitioner submitted his reply, but the impugned order terminating his services was passed despite the fact that photocopy of the driving licence, which was renewed by RTA Narnaul was produced. Making reference to some orders Civil Writ Petition No.14272 of 2009 : 2 : passed in Civil Writ Petition No.13980 of 2002 (Ram Kishan Vs. State of Haryana & others), decided on 25.2.2003, the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition. While issuing notice of motion, State counsel was asked to get the licence verified from Mathura at the cost and expenses of the petitioner. Today, an application has been filed to place on record the verifications that have been carried out. As per the report received from Mathura dated 24.6.2010, it is informed that licences No.M-412/M.T.R./98 and M-413/MTR/98 dated 17.3.1998 are entered in the name of Mahesh Chander son of Shri Raghuvir Singh and Mahesh Chander son of Shri Radhey Shyam. On 17.3.1998 there was neither any fees deposited in the name of Tejpal nor licence No.M-281/M.R.T./98 was issued. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, refers to a communication dated 4.3.2010 where licence No.M-281/M.T.R./98 was issued in the name of Tejpal son of Shri Dharampal for M/cycle and LMV duly endorsed for HTV and HPV and was statedly valid from 1.5.1999 to 30.4.2002. The report given on 4.3.2010 and the one given on 24.6.2010 are obviously contradictory. There seems to be some connivance. This aspect need not be gone into any further in this case in view of the fact that licence now relied upon by the petitioner was never produced by him before the authorities at the time of his selection. At that time, the licence produced by the petitioner was the one which was issued at Ranchi, but on verification was found to be false. The entire case set up by the petitioner is that he had another licence and was issued by Licensing Authority, Mathura, which he did not produce and so this action was taken to seek verification thereof. Once the petitioner has not produced the licence on which he is now relying, it cannot be legally considered for his selection and appointment. Even otherwise, there is serious doubt about the validity of this licence. In view of the doubtful nature of the licence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is holder of any valid driving licence issued by Civil Writ Petition No.14272 of 2009 : 3 : Licensing Authority at Mathura. A person seeking relief in equity must approach the court with clean hands. No equity can be shown to such a person, who has placed reliance on a fake document. Dismissed. July 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE