Delhi High Court
Constable Jitendera 961190617 vs C.R.P.F. & Anr. on 19 October, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: October 19, 2012
+ WP(C) 4642/2000
CONSTABLE JITENDERA 961190617 ..... Petitioner
Represented by : Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate
with Mr.Amritansh Bhateja,
Advocate
versus
C.R.P.F. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by : Mr.Himanshu Bajaj,
Advocate for R.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The petitioner had joined as a Constable on the strength of an OBC
Certificate obtained from the competent authority at Delhi. The
enrolment of the petitioner was in the quota pertaining to the Union
Territory of Delhi. When sent for verification the concerned SDM's
office informed that the certificate in question had been cancelled
inasmuch as the same was obtained on wrong information provided.
2. Surprisingly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate informed that he had
issued the certificate at the asking of some counsel.
3. Picking on said fact, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
having once issued the certificate, the learned SDM could not have
cancelled the same without verifying the correctness of the information
provided by the petitioner after notice to the petitioner.
4. We have accordingly preferred to look at the relevant record rather
than to get involved in the technicalities of the law. The record is the
once produced by the respondents in the Court.
5. The record would reveal that the petitioner obtained the
matriculation degree in the year 1990 from the Board of School
Education at Haryana. The domicile and cast certificate obtained from
the SDM Delhi which was relied upon by the petitioner is of February 6,
1995.
6. Neither with the writ petition nor to the respondents the petitioner
has annexed any proof of thereafter residing in Delhi and suffice would
it be for us to record that in his application form the petitioner has
disclosed his educational qualification to be class 10th pass. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he studied in a Senior Secondary School in
Delhi, and surprisingly we find that while applying for the job the
petitioner produced a character of certificate dated May 1, 1996
purportedly issued by the Principal of the Government Co-Education Sr.
Secondary School, Khaira, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could give no answer.
7. We find that neither in the departmental appeal filed by him nor in
the writ petition the petitioner has relied upon any document, other than
the tainted certificate in question, as per which he could make good his
stand that he was domiciled in Delhi and was entitled to the OBC
Certificate to be issued from the SDM at Delhi.
8. We highlight that the letter offering appointment to the petitioner
clearly indicated that the petitioner would be confirmed only upon the
verification of certificates supplied by him to the department and thus the
petitioner cannot make an issue with respect to an inquiry not being held
on the subject.
9. Suffice would it be to state that the matter is not of a kind where
inquiries are warranted. If a person is offered appointment subject to
certificates furnished by him being subjected to a verification, and if the
verification reveals that the certificates were not genuine, before
confirmation the department would be entitled to take appropriate action
without reverting to the candidate concerned. We would also highlight
that the petitioner had a departmental appellate remedy, which he availed,
and at that stage he could have relied upon such material which he had to
establish to the contrary. He did not do so. No material to the contrary
has been provided to us alongwith the writ petition.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as
to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 19, 2012
skb
