Jharkhand High Court

Kumari Anita Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 25 January, 2021

                                      [1]



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               L.P.A. No.07 of 2019

         Kumari Anita Verma, 33 years, daughter of Shri Jagdish Prasad
         Verma, resident of Village-Shali Baddiha, P.O.-Shali Baddiha, P.S.-
         Hirodih, District-Giridih.

                                                         . ... Petitioner/Appellant
                                            Versus

     1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
         Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

     2. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S.-Giridih, District-
         Giridih.

     3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S.-Giridih,
         District-Giridih.

     4. Child Development Project Officer, Birni, P.O. and P.S.-Birni,
         District-Giridih.

     5. Ful Kumari Verma, wife of Rama Shankar Verma, resident of Janta
         Jaridih, P.O.-Janta Jaridih, P.S.-Birni, District-Giridih.

                                                     ... Respondents/Respondents
                                     -------

    CORAM :             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                                     -------

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Shrestha Mehta, AC to SC-II For the Resp.-No.5 : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate

----------------------------

ORAL JUDGMENT

09/Dated 25th January, 2021

1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no

complaint about any audio and visual connectivity.

[2]

2. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed

against the order/judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1112 of 2016 whereby and

whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by not interfering

with the selection of respondent No.5 as Aaganbari Sevika.

3. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated reads as

hereunder:

In pursuance to the meeting held on 05.03.2004,

respondent No.5 was selected as Aaganbari Sevika for Jaridih East

Centre taking into consideration her higher marks in Madhyama

Examination. The appellant/writ-petitioner has questioned the

appointment of respondent No.5 on the basis of the submission of

forged certificate, therefore, she raised objection before the

respondent No.4 to hold an enquiry but no steps were taken.

The appellant/writ-petitioner, from perusal of one letter

bearing No.300 dated 11.04.2012 containing therein the certificates

of Aaganbari Sevika employed in the entire district of Giridih,

including the certificate of the respondent No.5, came to know that

the respondent No.5 used one mark sheet of secondary examination,

2001 showing her as successful candidate securing 2nd Division

(359 marks) from L.R. Girls High School, Mirzaganj whereas on a

comparative study of the details with regard to marks shown in the

proceeding of the Village Committee and the educational

certificates provided to Shri Bahadur Singh under Right to

Information Act, 2005, it has been found that both are different

which clearly establishes that the respondent No.5 used forged [3]

educational certificate for procuring job as Aaganbari Sevika

depriving the appellant/writ-petitioner. The appellant/writ-petitioner

approached to this Court questioning the aforesaid appointment of

respondent No.5 on the aforesaid ground.

The respondent No.5 appeared and submitted before the

writ Court that no forged certificate has been used rather the

appointment of respondent No.5 is based upon the observance of

rules and procedure.

State has filed counter affidavit inter alia therein stand

was taken that the fact about the allegation of using forged

certificate by the respondent No.5 is absolutely incorrect. In fact,

the certificates produced by her were duly verified and declared

genuine by the Head Master, Nathu Mahto Kushwaha Sanskrit

Prathmik-Sha-Uccha Vidyalaya, Balhara on 05.12.2012.

The writ Court after taking into consideration the

aforesaid stand, dismissed writ petition by declaring not to interfere

with the selection of the respondent No.5, which is the subject

matter of the present intra-court appeal.

4. Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/writ-

petitioner has submitted that the selection of respondent No.5 is

based upon forged certificate as would appear from the document

obtained from the Right to Information Act, 2005, therefore, her

appointment is fit to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the State has disputed the aforesaid stand inter

alia on the ground that no forged certificate has been used by the [4]

respondent No.5 rather the respondent No.5 has been engaged on

the basis of Madhyama certificate in the year 2004 while the

question of validity of Madhyama certificate has been decided after

its derecognition in the year 2014 only, therefore, the aforesaid

decision of derecognition of the year 2014 cannot have its

retrospective application which has already been made in the year

2004.

According to him, learned Single Judge after taking into

consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter has rightly not

interfered in the writ petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the

documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the

learned Single Judge.

The admitted fact herein is that the respondent No.5 has

been engaged as Aaganbari Sevika in the year 2004 by calling upon

the selection process in which she has been found eligible. The

selection of the respondent No.5 was based on Madhyama

certificate.

The appellant/writ-petitioner has objected to such

selection of respondent No.5 on the ground of using forged

certificate of Madhyama. The basis of making such allegation has

not been brought on record. However, one document which has

been obtained by the appellant/writ-petitioner through Right to

Information Act, 2005 has been brought on record showing therein

some discrepancy in the mark sheet.

[5]

7. This Court, repeatedly asked learned counsel for the appellant/writ-

petitioner as to whether any document has been brought on record

to show the Madhyama certificate as not genuine but the learned

counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner failed to answer the same.

8. It is settled position of law that by merely raising the point of

forgery does not suffice in coming to a declaration about

commission of forgery rather the same has to be established and it is

onus upon the party to establish it beyond all reasonable doubt.

Herein, no such document has been placed.

9. The learned Single Judge, however, has recorded a reason that

Madhyama certificate has been derecognized in the year 2014,

therefore, the certificate which has been issued prior to

derecognition will be said to be valid. In view thereof, if

appointment has been made on the basis of Madhyama certificate in

the year 2004, the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity.

10. So far as the allegation of commission of forgery on the basis of