Allahabad High Court
Nawab Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 18 of 2021
Appellant :- Nawab Singh Chauhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Dev Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 9.12.2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed.
It is a case where service of the appellant was terminated by respondent vide order dated 22.09.2020. It was on the ground that B.Ed. degree was obtained from Kesarwani Vidyapith, Jabalpur (M.P.). The University Grant Commission issued Press Release for fake Universities/Institutions in which name of Kesarwani Vidyapith, Jabalpur (M.P.) also appeared. Since the institution was not having authority to confer degree, if obtained by the appellant, would be void and it is settled law that the void appointment cannot be considered for grant of any benefit whatsoever and even in reference to delay, the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2004(2) SCC 105 held that even delay in initiation of action or for that even rendering 27 years of service would not be a ground for grant of relief. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted here under for ready reference:
"15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.
19.It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission, as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud."
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another vs. D. Narsing Rao and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695. It is in reference to delay in initiation of action. The issue before the Apex Court in the case was different. It was a revenue case where period of limitation is also provided. The facts of this case are absolutely different and otherwise covered by the judgment in the case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai (supra).
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge as the B.Ed. degree obtained by the appellant was unauthorised and it is treated to be as void, appeal thus fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2021/Ashish Pd.
