HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67892 of 2011 Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Khare,Siddharth Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Bhardwaj Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner and perused the record.
2. Petitioner's candidature has been cancelled on the ground that certificate of residence filed by him on verification was found forged having not been issued by the authority by whom it is alleged to have been issued. Before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice was also issued to petitioner in reply whereof he could not submit any substantial defence except of saying that he got the said document from his counsel.
3. Sri Khare, Senior Advocate submitted that petitioner is actually resident of Chandauli and this fact is mentioned in his caste certificate as also in the new certificate which has been obtained by him subsequently and therefore as a matter of fact so far as residence part is concerned, it is beyond doubt that petitioner belong to Chandauli, hence merely for the reason that the document filed by petitioner earlier is found forged, his candidature cannot be cancelled. He also submitted that residence itself has nothing to do and is not related with the process and criteria for selection in Special BTC Course, 2008 and therefore also his candidate cannot be cancelled on this ground.
4. However, I find no reason to accept the submissions as above.
5. A perusal of advertisement shows that a candidate was required to be a permanent resident of State of U.P. As a matter of evidence and to satisfy the said requirement he was supposed to file a certificate of residence issued by District Magistrate of concerned District or an Officer authorized by such District Magistrate. The aforesaid certificate was a compulsory condition as is evident from the following:
^^bl izf'k{k.k esa p;u ds fy;s m0iz0 ds vgZ ,oa bPNqd vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSa] vr% vkosnu i= ds lkFk m0iz0 esa LFkk;h fuoklh gksus dk tuin ds ftykf/kdkjh vFkok muds }kjk vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr vf/kokl izek.k i= layXu djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA^^
6. To satisfy the aforesaid condition, petitioner submitted a certificate of residence which was admittedly found forged having not been issued by the authority alleged to have issued it. This fact in effect could neither be controverted effectively by the petitioner nor has been shown to be incorrect before this Court by Sri Khare, learned Senior Advocate. He, however, went on assailing the impugned order on the ground that firstly since criteria for selection, the place of residence by itself was not material, and, secondly the other documents namely caste certificate as also residence certificate obtained by petitioner subsequently clearly prove that petitioner was actually resident of District Chandauli, for the sole reason that certificate he appended along with his application was a forged document, his candidature ought not be cancelled.
7. I proceed to assume that the basic fact that petitioner belong to District Chandauli is not incorrect. It is also difficult to discern any benefit that the petitioner could have gathered by filing a forged certificate of residence when actually he belong to the same District to which he claim. But the matter does not rest here. The question is why he filed a forged document. When he filed such a document, it cannot be assumed that he had no knowledge that the document is fictitious or forged. Even if some credit is given to petitioner that he got the said certificate through a counsel and had no knowledge that the certificate is forged or fictitious but the fact is the counsel was his agent and petitioner is the beneficiary. He cannot absolve himself of his responsibility. Moreover petitioner has not disclosed the name of the counsel and other details so that an enquiry could have been made from him as to why and in what circumstances he could obtain a document which was forged or fictitious. The fact remains that a forged document was appended by the petitioner along with his application form and such document was a necessary and mandatory condition for consideration of his candidature. The said condition has been violated by petitioner since within due date, i.e. the cut of date of submission of application form, no valid document i.e. certificate of residence was appended by the petitioner along with his application form. Any subsequent acquisition of a document cannot cure a basic defect particularly when it is supported by the fact that petitioner tried to meet the requirement by a forged document.
8. Petitioner is an aspirant to obtain an eligibility qualification necessary for appointment as Teacher of a Primary School. He would be imparting education and moulding the very young population of this Country. The primary education forms foundation of literacy and character building of young people. If a person having the character and aptitude of taking advantage of forged and fictitious document is allowed to go for such a vocation, it would be against public interest. A person who has aptitude, at least of forgery etc., may have all the probabilities not to prepare an ideal generation to take care of bright future of this Country. A person may be otherwise competent but if has the aptitude of not hesitating to do something wrong, it would be dangerous to allow such a person to hold a place of responsibility. The responsibility of a primary Teacher is much more onerous and important. He prepares the ground of youngest mind. A person having spurious mind is likely to grow a spurious crop. The mere fact that for selection criteria is preparing merit, the place of residence is not important in my view, would be a wrong test to look into the real issue and crux of the matter. The issue in this case is whether a person capable of forgery etc. should be allowed to go ahead for consideration of his candidature for pious purpose in hand namely ultimate object of appointment as Primary Teacher. It is said that sometimes minor errors, if condoned or overlooked, may give an opportunity to a person to improve upon himself but the other side of picture is also a fait accompli that ignoring a mistake treating it to be minor has resulted in drastic and serious consequences. Moreover. If we have to prepare a clean and honest society, one has to adopt the principle of zero tolerance against every kind of misdeed which constitute even a criminal offence. It is not the case of petitioner that he submitted a document which was genuine and correct. It is in these circumstances once it is established that petitioner submitted a forged and fictitious document along with his application form, in terms of advertisement making clear that in such circumstances application can be rejected, I find no error or fault in the order impugned cancelling his candidature.
9. In the result, writ petition lacks merit.
10. Dismissed.
Dt. 9.12.2011 PS