Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 July, 2018
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 6th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6905/2018 & CM APPL 26174/2018 (stay)
MANOJ KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mrs.Bharathi Raju, CGSC for R-1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated
28.5.2018 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the candidature of the
petitioner for the post of Constable (Crew) in the Border Security
Force Water Wing has been cancelled. The petitioner also seeks a writ
of mandamus thereby directing respondents no.1 to 3 to appoint the
petitioner as Constable (Crew) pursuant to his selection.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was published in
the Employment News on 28.8.2016 whereby applications were
invited for various Group „B‟ and „C‟ posts including for the post of
Constable (Crew). The petitioner submitted his application for the
post of Constable (Crew). The petitioner was called upon to appear in
the written examination and upon completing the first phase i.e.
written examination he was called for the second phase examination
i.e. documentation, PST/PET Trade Test on 18.12.2016. The petitioner
also appeared for a medical and review examination on 6/10.02.2018
and 06.06.2017, respectively. The petitioner was initially declared
unfit on 10.2.2017 on the ground of his suffering from hypertension.
On an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order, he was found
medically fit in the review medical board held on 6.6.2018. However,
the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 30.1.2018
proposing to cancel his candidature on the ground that as per the
remarks given by the issuing authority on 27.7.2017 the swimming
certificate dated 20.7.2017 submitted by him during the course of
recruitment process was found to be fake.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached respondent
no.4/Tisha Swimming Pool and Resta, and obtained a letter/certificate
dated 7.2.2018, addressed to respondent no.3, stating that the
petitioner had attended swimming classes from 1.3.2016 to 10.7.2016
and could swim in deep water as well. In response to the Show Cause
Notice, the petitioner in his reply dated 7.2.2018 submitted that all his
documents including swimming certificate were genuine and prayed
that an appointment letter be issued to him.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication/impugned order
dated 28.5.2018 by which his reply was rejected being devoid of merit
and also on the ground that the swimming certificate was found to be
fake and consequently his candidature was rejected. The petitioner
again received a confirmation from the Institute but since respondents
no.1 to 3 did not consider his requests favourably he was forced to file
the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has
been passed without any application of mind and on the presumption
that the swimming certificate issued by respondent no.4 was fake
without taking into consideration the subsequent letters dated 5.2.2018
and 7.6.2018 issued by the same institute. It is, thus, contended that
the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled
to appointment as a Constable (Crew).
6. Ms.Bharathi Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
no.1 to 3, enters appearance on an advance copy and submits that the
present writ petition is misconceived and a gross abuse of the process
of the Court and, thus, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Ms.Bharathi further submits that the petitioner had made an
application for appointment as a Constable (Crew) in the Border
Security Force Water Wing. The petitioner had also submitted an
experience certificate from respondent no.4 institute. Respondents
no.1 to 3 had sought verification from respondent no.4, upon which
the following response was received:
"Reg. No.......... Date 27.7.2018
To
Incharge
Special Field Vigilance Team
SHQ BSF, Jaisalmer (N) Raj.
Sub.: Verification of experience certificate of swimming.
Reply for Refer your letter no.Vig/SHQ-HSMR(N)/2017/932 on
dated 26 July, 2017.
Sir,
It is submitted that Mr.Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Bal
Mukuand Yadav, Vill-Dheepur, Post-Harshora, The.-Bansur,
Distt-Alwar (Raj.) Pin-301412 has not any experience
certificate issued by t his institution for any subject.
Proprietor
[Tej Pal Yadav]"
8. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 further submits that based
on the response received from respondent no.4, wherein it was
categorically stated that no such experience certificate was issued by
the institute to the petitioner, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the
petitioner.
9. Ms.Bharathi further submits that the second certificate was produced
by him, however, upon examination, the same did not repose any
confidence for the reason that the same was handwritten on a
photocopy of the letter head of the institute. Counsel, thus, contends
that the petitioner has submitted a fake swimming certificate and he
has approached this Court with unclean hands.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and have also examined the documents placed on record
including the letter dated 27.7.2017 issued by respondent no.4. The
basic facts, which have been detailed, hereinabove are not in dispute
except that the petitioner has relied upon a certificate dated 28.7.2016
issued by respondent no.4. Upon receipt of the certificate respondents
no.1 to 3 had sought verification from respondent no.4 but in clear
terms respondent no.4 had denied having issued any such certificate to
the petitioner, which is evident from the letter dated 27.7.2018 issued
by respondent no.4, which is reproduced at para 7 above.
11. We have also examined subsequent certificate and found the same to
be handwritten on a letter head, which is a photocopy of the letter head
of respondent no.4. The photocopy is evident from the fact that the
colour of the paper is almost black. In the subsequent certificate
surprisingly there is no mention of the earlier certificate or any
explanation for denying having issued any certificate earlier.
12. For the reasons aforestated, we find no infirmity in the impugned
order dated 28.5.2018. We also find no grounds to entertain the
present writ petition and the application and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 06, 2018
msr
