Smt. Aarti Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7508 MP

                                       1

             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                            W.P No. 12187/2014
     (Smt. Aarti Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)


Jabalpur, Dated: 17/11/2021

      Shri Jai Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Shivam Hazari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri R.S Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

Petitioner who was selected as Up-Aganwadhi Karyakarta in Village

Dodiya Chauhan, Tehsil Theothar, District Rewa has filed this writ petition

being aggrieved of order passed by learned Additional Collector, Rewa in Case

No. 52/Aa-89/2012-13 dated 31/01/2014 at the instance of private respondent

no.5 i.e Smt. Chandravati Devi @ Premwati challenging the appointment

order issued in favour of the present petitioner on 08/09/2010 on the ground

that said appointment was obtained through forged document in as much as

petitioner Aarti Singh has presented 5th Class mark sheet issued by Basic

Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad showing that petitioner had passed Primary

School annual examination in 1997 with 97.66% of marks but on verification

when information was sought by the private respondent from the Block

Education Officer, Development Block Charwachyal District Kaushambhi then

she was informed vide communication dated 07/01/2013 that mark sheet of

the present petitioner is forged. The Head Master of R.N Singh Primary

School Charwachyal, Allahabad vide communication dated 01/01/2013

informed that Aarti Singh, Daughter of Narendra Bhadur Singh, whose date of

birth is 05/06/1988 was never enrolled as a student, in the said school and her

mark sheet is forged, which is not within his knowledge and does not contain

signatures of any of his employee and teacher.

Shri Jai Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is

no provision in the scheme of appointment of Aganwadhi Karyakarta for

condonation of delay. Limitation of 10 days has been prescribed in the scheme

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

W.P No. 12187/2014 (Smt. Aarti Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)

and therefore appeal which was filed in the year 2012 could not have been

entertained by the learned Additional Collector, District Rewa and on this

ground he prays for setting aside of the impugned order dated 31/01/2014.

Learned Panel Lawyer in his turn supports the impugned order and

submits that no interference is called for.

Shri R.S Thakur, learned counsel for private respondent in his turn also

supports the impugned order and has placed reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Sesh Nath Singh & another Vs. Baidyabati

Seheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & another 2021 SAR (Civ) 665,

wherein it is held that expression 'court' in section 14(2) of Limitation Act

deemed to be any Forum for a civil proceeding including any Tribunal or any

Forum under SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that if there is material on record

to show sufficient cause for delay, then even formal application in writing is

not mandatory. Placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel for the

respondent no.5 submits that if there is sufficient material on record

disclosing sufficient cause for the delay, delay can be condoned, irrespective

of whether there is any formal application or not. It is further submitted that

in fact respondent no.5 had raised objection at the time of issuance of

provisional select list on 14/09/2009 though on 16/09/2010 had submitted an

application before District Programme Officer, Rewa, but when same was not

decided, then appeal was filed.

It is further submitted that provisions contained in section 5 and 14 are

not mutually exclusive and even in a case where section 14 does not strictly

apply, the principles of section 14 can be invoked to grant relief to an

applicant under section 5 by purposively construing 'sufficient cause'

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

W.P No. 12187/2014 (Smt. Aarti Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)

inasmuch as it is well settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a

statute does not vitiate an order.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the

record, when this Court specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioner to

demonstrate from the record that he has some unimpeachable documentary

evidence to rebut the documents produced by private respondent to

demonstrate that the mark sheet of 5th Class as was obtained by the petitioner

was not forged and she had actually taken admission in R.N Singh Primary

School, Charwachyal Allahabad then Shri Shukla submits that he has no such

documents in his possession.

Legal position in this regard is that an appointment will be invalid if its

making is vitiated by any vitiating factor, which prevents the formation of a

valid contract.

In case of Rita Mishra & others Vs. Director, Primary Education,

Bihar & others 1988 (3) SLR 130 Patna (Full Bench), it is held that an

appointment will be invalid when it rested on a forged letter in as much as the

assent of the employer was obtained on the basis of a mistake, fraud,

misrepresentation etc and that assent being void abinitio will not create any

right in favour of the petitioner.

In case of Central Airmen Selection Board & another Vs.

Surender Kumar Das (2003)1 SCC 152, it is held that a person who

obtains appointment on misrepresenting his educational qualification could

not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel when his

appointment is cancelled because of such misrepresentation.

Similarly, in case of Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission

Vs Farhat Rasool and others 1995 Supp (4) SCC 621, it is held that an

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

W.P No. 12187/2014 (Smt. Aarti Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)

appointment is liable to be set aside if it is obtained by committing fraud.

Similarly in case of Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Supp(4) SC

100, it is held that an appointment is liable to be set aside if it is obtained on

the basis of bogus and forged records.

Thus, when tested on the aforesaid legal authorities, then the action of

the Additional Collector in setting aside the selection and appointment of the

petitioner as Up-Aganwadhi Karyakarta cannot be faulted with, therefore

petition fails and is dismissed.

(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Digitally signed tarun by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2021.11.18 16:40:50 +05'30'