Orissa High Court
Alekha Kumar Panigrahi vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 2 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C.(OA) No.2665 of 2016
In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunal's Act, 1985.
..................
Alekha Kumar Panigrahi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. J.K. Khuntia (Advocate)
H.S. Deo (Advocate)
For Opp. Parties : Mr. B. Panigrahi
Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 12.07.2023 and Date of Judgment: 02.08.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
challenging the order dtd.28.10.2016 passed by the Collector -Cum-
Chairman, SSA, Bhadrak in Misc. Case No. 01/2016 arising out of
W.P.(C) No. 15497 of 2016. Vide the said order the Petitioner who
was continuing as a primary school teacher was terminated from his
service.
// 2 //
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement
issued by the Opp. Party No. 2 in the year 2003 for selection and
engagement of Sikshya Sahayak, the Petitioner made his application
and on being found suitable, he was issued with the order of
engagement vide order dtd.16.12.2003 under Annexure-1 series.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11748 of
2003 though the Petitioner was disengaged, but once again vide office
order dtd.28.09.2005 under Annexure-1 series, he was reengaged as a
Sikshya Sahayak.
3. It is contended that while so continuing as a Junior Teacher the
Petitioner for the first time was issued with a show-cause notice on
17.04.2010 under Annexure-2 by the Opp. Party No. 3 asking him to
produce the original certificates and mark-sheets regarding his
educational qualification for verification. The Petitioner as directed
also produced his original certificates and mark-sheets in terms of
Annexure-2 and Opp. Party No. 4 vide letter dtd.05.05.2010 under
Annexure-3 requested Controller of Examination, Utkal University to
verify the genuineness of the mark-sheets so submitted by the
Petitioner of his B.A. and B.Ed. Examination. Not only that vide letter
dtd.29.05.2010 under Annexure-4, Opp. Party No. 3 requested Opp.
Party No. 4 to produce the advertisement published for engagement of
Sikshya Sahayak during the year 2004-05 and other relevant
// 3 //
information. In the said letter Opp. Party No. 4 was also requested to
provide the marks secured by the present Petitioner during the
selection process.
3.1. It is contended that on receipt of Annexure-4 vide letter
dtd.24.06.2010 under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No. 4 intimated Opp.
Party No. 3 to the effect that the original application form and other
relevant documents may be available in his office. In the meantime
vide letter dtd.20.08.2010 Utkal University under Annexure-6
indicated that the result of the present Petitioner of his B.Ed.
Examination, 1994 has been withheld due to want of Registration
Number.
3.2. It is contended that while the matter stood thus, an allegation was
made by one Dillip Kumar Nayak that the Petitioner by producing
fake B.A. and B.Ed. certificates along with fake mark-sheets has
managed to get appointment as Sikshya Sahayak in the year 2005. On
receipt of such complaint, the Petitioner was again issued with the
show-cause by the Opp. Party No. 3 on 28.10.2010 directing him to
submit his reply with regard to the submission of fake B.A. and B.Ed.
certificates for his selection and appointment as Sikshya Sahayak.
3.3. It is contended that the Petitioner on receipt of the show-cause
dtd.28.10.2010 under Annexure-8, submitted his reply on 15.11.2010
under Annexure-9 indicating that pursuant to the earlier notice issued
// 4 //
on 29.05.2010 under Annexure-4, the Petitioner since has already
submitted his original B.A. and B.Ed. marksheets, the authenticity of
the said documents may be verified at his level.
3.4. It is contended that in the meantime vide office order
dtd.13.06.2012 the Petitioner while continuing as a Junior Teacher, he
was appointed as a regular primary school teacher vide order
dtd.13.06.2012 w.e.f.28.09.2011 under Annexure-10. However, the
Petitioner was again issued with a show-cause notice by the Opp.
Party No. 2 on 29.08.2016 under Annexure-12 directing him to file
his reply as to why his services shall not be terminated for submitting
forged B.A. & B.Ed. certificates during the process of selection of
Sikshya Sahayak in the year 2004-05.
3.5. The Petitioner challenging issuance of such show-cause by the
Opp. Party No. 2 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15497 of
2016. This Court vide order dtd.12.09.2016 while disposing the writ
petition, observed that if the Petitioner files his show-cause within a
period of 15 days, Opp. Party No. 2 shall conduct an enquiry after
affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and pass a reasoned
order within a period of one month thereafter. Till a decision is taken,
the services of the Petitioner shall not be dispensed with.
3.6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Petitioner submitted
his reply to the show-cause on 27.09.2016 and the matter was
// 5 //
registered as Misc. Case No. 01 of 2016 before the Opp. Party No. 2.
But Opp. Party No. 2 without causing any enquiry passed the order of
disengagement vide the impugned order dtd.28.10.2016 under
Annexure-13.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner pursuant to the selection process initiated by the Opp. Party
No. 2 was duly engaged as Sikshya Sahayak initially vide order
dtd.16.12.2003 and subsequently vide another order issued on
28.09.2005 under Annexure-1 series. The Petitioner thereafter was
engaged as a Junior Teacher on completion of 3 years of engagement
as a Sikshya Sahayak. While so continuing when the Petitioner was
issued with a show-cause and he was directed to produce the
certificates in support of his qualification vide Annexure-2, he
submitted all the original certificates in support of his qualification
including the mark-sheet of his B.A. and B.Ed. qualification.
4.1. Even though after due verification of his B.A. and B.Ed.
certificates from Utkal University nothing was found against him, but
the Petitioner when was issued with another show-cause on
28.10.2010 under Annexure-8, he submitted his reply to the same on
15.11.2010 under Annexure-9. On submission of such reply no
further action was taken and the Petitioner vide order dtd.13.06.2012
was appointed as a regular primary school teacher w.e.f.28.09.2011
// 6 //
under Annexure-10. But surprisingly, the Petitioner was again issued
with a show-cause by the Opp. Party No. 2 on 29.08.2016 under
Annexure-12 and without following the direction of this Court so
issued in its order dtd.12.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 15497 of 2016, the
Petitioner was terminated from his service vide order dtd.28.10.2016
under Annexure-13.
4.2. It is accordingly contended that since while terminating the
services of the Petitioner vide the impugned order dtd.28.10.2016 the
direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15497 of 2016 was not
followed, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is
also contended that since the Petitioner was duly selected and
appointed as a Sikshya Sahayak and was regularized as a junior
teacher and subsequently as a regular primary school teacher, Opp.
Parties basing on the principle of promissory estoppel are not
competent to terminate the services of the Petitioner. In support of
such submission learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision
of this Court in the case of Prtima Sahoo Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
(2021 (I) ILR-CUT-115) and another decision of this Court in the
case of Bikash Mahalik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2022 (I) ILR-
CUT-108). Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on another
decision of this Court in the case of Bishnu Kishore Majhi Vs. State
of Odisha & Ors. (2023 (I) OLR - 162).
// 7 //
4.3. This Court in Para 10 of the Judgment in the case of Prtima
Sahoo has held as follows:-
"10. Thus, in this case, the district administration,
being an integral part of the State of Orissa, by its
declaration i.e. act of issuing order of appointment
intentionally caused the petitioner to believe that she is found
to be eligible on comparison of the marks secured by all the
candidates and she acted upon such belief, thereby resigned
from the post of Anganwadi Worker and joined the post of
Sikshya Sahayak under Bhapur Block. In such situation,
neither the State of Orissa nor its representatives i.e. the
district administration or the Director of the OPEPA, in any
proceeding between it and the petitioner deny the truth of
that thing. Once the State Government has allowed the
petitioner to believe that she has qualified in the selection
process and is being appointed as Sikshya Sahayak in
pursuance of which she resigned from the post of Anganwadi
Worker and worked for almost six to eight months as Sikshya
Sahayak, the district administration/ State Government
cannot deny that she does not qualify for the post of Sikshya
Sahayak."
4.4. Similarly, this Court in Para 27 of the Judgment in the case of
Bikash Mahalik has held as follows:-
"27. In Pratima Sahoo (supra), this Court held that
the order of disengagement of the petitioner from the post of
Sikshya Sahayak, pursuant to decision of the district
administration, having found qualified in the selection
process and appointed after resigning from her erstwhile post
of Anganwadi Worker and having worked for six to eight
months, amounts to putting the petitioner in prejudical and
disadvantageous position and the reason assigned for later
// 8 //
finding the petitioner not suitable for securing less marks
than other meritorious candidates do holds good, the
petitioner cannot be found faulted by the mistake committed
by the appointing authority in calculating the percentage.
Consequentially, direction was given to absorb the petitioner
forthwith applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the
said case."
4.5. Similarly, this Court in Para 9 to 15 of the Judgment in the case
of Bishnu Kishore Majhi has held as follows:-
"In the case of Miss Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur
University. 1992 (11) OLR 341, where the petitioner had
been admitted in Rama Devi Women's College in 1985 and
completed her B.Sc. from that College and thereafter
obtained Diploma in Pharmacy from V.S.S. Medical College,
Burla, but on cancellation of her result because of mass
copying she had approached this Court, it was observed by
this Court that in cases of mass copying, natural justice is not
required to be complied with and, as such, it is apparent that
the candidate in question does not get an opportunity to have
his say in the matter. Therefore, after thorough discussion on
the principle of promissory estoppels under Section 115 of
the Evidence Act, the Division Bench of this Court held that
the said case was a fit case, where the petitioner should be
protected by applying the principles of promissory estoppel.
Similar view was taken in the case of David C. Jhan
v. Principal Ispat College, Rourkela and others, 1984 (1)
OLR 564, where the petitioner was admitted to the College
after being declared to have passed the High School
Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of
Secondary Education, but subsequently the Board notified
that the candidate was wrongly declared to have passed and
on the basis of such notification, the College Authorities
// 9 //
cancelled the admission of the petitioner. But due to
interference of this Court, referring to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Gita Mishra v. Utkal University, ILR
1971 CUT-24, the said notification was quashed and the
petitioner in the said case was
permitted to continue his studies.
10. In Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa
Engineering College and another, 1989 (1) OLR 440, this
Court, applying the principle of estoppel, observed that once
a student is admitted after satisfying all the qualification,
subsequent cancellation of admission cannot be made since
he/she would be deprived of pursuing his/her studies in any
other institution.
11. The principles of promissory estoppel has been
considered by the apex Court in Union of India and others v.
M/s Anglo Afghan. Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718,
Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
and others, AIR 1971 SC 2021, M/s Motilal Padampat
Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, AIR 1979 SC 621, Union of India and others v.
Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806, Delihi Cloth
& General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR
1987 SC 2424, Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana
and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent
decisions also.
12. Sanatan Gauda (supra) is a case where the
petitioner, while securing his admission in the Law College,
had admittedly submitted his mark sheet along with the
application for admission, the law college had admitted him
and he had pursued his studies for two years, the University
had also granted him the admission cards for the Pre-Law
and Inter-Law Examinations, he was also permitted to
appear in the said Examinations and was admitted to the
Final Year of the course and it was only at the stage of the
// 10 //
declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law
Examinations, the University raised objection to his so called
ineligibility to be admitted to the law course. Therefore, in
the said case, this Court held that the University is clearly
estoppel from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's
examination or preventing him from pursuing his Final Year
course.
13. The ratio decided by this Court as well as the
apex Court, as discussed above, is fully applicable to the
present case and any other plea advanced by opposite parties
no.2 and 3-BPUT, cannot sustain in the eye of law.
14. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N.
Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, the apex Court, in
paragraphs-8, 10 and 11 of the judgment held that for the
mistake committed by the Department in the procedure for
initiating a disciplinary proceeding, the appellant should not
be made to suffer. Similar view has also been taken in
Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra
Mishra, (2012) 11 SCC 565.
15. In the above premises, the stand taken by the
BPUT, that inadvertently the result was published and
subsequently the mistake having been detected the same was
withdrawn, cannot have any justification, in view of the law
laid down by the apex Court, as mentioned supra."
5. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other
hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed by the Opp. Party No. 3. Though it is not disputed
that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Opp. Party No. 2, the
Petitioner was selected and engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak vide order
dtd.16.12.2003 and subsequent order dtd.28.09.2005 under
// 11 //
Annexure-1 series and he was also regularized as a junior teacher and
as a regular primary school teacher, but at the time of his initial
selection the Petitioner since had submitted forged mark-sheets of
both B.A. and B.Ed. examination, show-cause was issued on
17.04.2010 under Annexure-2. Basing on the show-cause issued by
the Opp. Party No. 3 on 17.04.2010 under Annexure-2, when the
Petitioner submitted the mark-sheets of both B.A. and B.Ed.
examination, it was found that the Petitioner has secured 503 marks
out of 1200 marks in B.A. and 406 marks out of 900 marks in his
B.Ed. examination. But in the calculation sheet prepared on the basis
of mark-sheets submitted by the Petitioner at the time of submission
of his application, his mark in the B.A. Examination was reflected as
714 marks out of 1200 marks and 526 marks out of 900 marks in the
B.Ed. examination.
5.1. Since in the calculation-sheet prepared at the time of initial
selection basing on the mark-sheet produced by the Petitioner, his
mark in the B.A. examination was calculated as 714 marks out of
1200 marks and in the B.Ed. examination his mark was calculated as
526 marks out of 900 marks and on verifying the original mark-sheets
so produced by the Petitioner pursuant to Annexure-2, it was found
that the Petitioner has in fact secured 503 marks out of 1200 marks in
his B.A. examination and 406 marks out of 900 marks in his B.Ed.
// 12 //
examination, show-cause was issued to the Petitioner to justify the
anomaly.
5.2. Not only that in the selection conducted by the Opp. Party No. 2
in the year 2003, the Petitioner having belonged to UR Category and
taking into account his mark secured in the B.A. & B.Ed.
Examination so produced by him, he should not have been selected.
Taking into account the mark secured by the Petitioner in his
B.A. i.e. 503 marks out of 1200 marks and in the B.Ed. i.e. 406 marks
out of 900 marks, his percentage comes to 41.91% in the B.A.
examination and 45.11% in his B.Ed. examination, the average
percentage of which comes to 43.51%. But since the Petitioner at the
time of his selection produced fake mark-sheets showing his mark in
B.A. as 714 marks out of 1200 marks and 526 marks out of 900 marks
in the B.Ed., his percentage was calculated at 59.50% in the B.A.
examination and 58.44% in the B.Ed. examination, the average
percentage of which comes to 58.97%. Since the cut-off mark in UR
category in the selection made in the year 2005 was fixed at 55.31%,
taking into account the average mark of the Petitioner at 58.97%, the
Petitioner was selected and engaged. But in fact in the original mark-
sheets so produced by the Petitioner his percentage of mark in the
B.A. examination is 41.91% and in the B.Ed. it is 45.11%, the average
of which comes to 43.51%.
// 13 //
5.3. Accordingly, since on enquiry it was found that the Petitioner by
producing forged mark-sheets of his B.A. and B.Ed. examination was
selected and appointed as a Sikshya Sahayak in UR Category, basing
on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15497 of 2016 Opp.
Party No. 2 after due enquiry came to the aforesaid finding with
regard to the percentage of mark secured by the Petitioner originally
as per his certificate and the calculation made because of the forged
mark-sheets produced by the Petitioner at the time of making the
application. Since the Petitioner by producing forged mark-sheets of
his B.A. and B.Ed. examination managed to be selected and engaged
in UR Category, Opp. Party No. 2 rightly terminated the Petitioner
from his services vide order dtd.28.10.2016 under Annexure-13.
5.4. It is also contended by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that in
the calculation-sheet so prepared at the time of initial selection, the
Petitioner had put a signature in the scrutiny-cum-marks calculation
register by agreeing to the said calculation. Therefore, it is to be held
that the Petitioner knowingly submitted forged and manipulated
mark-sheets of his B.A. and B.Ed. examination and basing on the
exaggerated mark he was selected and appointed as a Sikshya
Sahayak. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality and
irregularity has been committed by the Opp. Party No. 2 in
// 14 //
terminating the services of the Petitioner vide order dtd.28.10.2016
under Annexure-13.
5.5. It is also contended that the Petitioner when was issued with a
show-cause on 28.10.2010 under Annexure-8, Petitioner challenging
the same approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22419 of 2011.
Pursuance to the order passed by this Court, Opp. Party No. 2
initiated Misc. Case No. 13 of 2011. In the aforesaid Misc. Case No.
13 of 2011, Opp. Party No. 2 held that Opp. Party No. 3 must cause
an enquiry and if any prima facie material is found against the
Petitioner, further show-cause can be issued. On receipt of the report,
Opp. Party No. 2 issued a fresh show-cause on 29.08.2016 under
Anenxure-12, which led to passing of the order impugned.
5.6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel in support of his submission
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported
of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vrs. Jagannath (dead)
by L.Rs. & Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 853) and another decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Badami (Deceased) by her
L.R. Vs. Bhali (2012(2) CLR (SC) 312).
5.6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 7 of the Judgment in the case of S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu has held as follows:-
"7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent
error. The short question before the High Court was whether
in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath
// 15 //
obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the
court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made
observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree
with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the
plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by
true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot
be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes
an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The
courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the
parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean
hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not,
process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-
evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons
from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever
to retain the, illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation
to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no
right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out
at any stage of the litigation"
5.7. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 21 to 24 of the Judgment
in the case of Smt. Badami has held as follows:-
"21. In the said case it was clearly stated that the courts of
law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and
one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A
person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to
approach the Court. A litigant who approaches the court, is
bound to produce all the documents executed by him which
are relevant to the litigation. If a vital document is withheld
in order to gain advantage on the other side he would be
guilty of playing fraud on court as well as on the opposite
party.
22. In Smt. Shrist Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers AIR 1992
SC 1555 it has been opined that fraud and collusion vitiate
// 16 //
even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or
deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan
Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.
P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and
other (2003) 8 SC 311 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri
Devi and others (2003) 8 SCC 319.
23. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T.
Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110 after referring to the
earlier decision thiscourt observed as follows:-
"In Lazaurs Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702
Lord Denning observed at pages 712 & 713, "No
judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud.
Fraud unravels everything." In the same judgment
Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud vitiates all
transactions known to the law of however high a
degree of solemnity."
24. Yet in another decision Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala &
Anr. AIR 2006 Sc 3028 it has been held that no Court will
allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and no
Court, by way of rule of evidence and procedure, can allow
its eyes to be closed to the fact it is being used as an
instrument of fraud. The basic principle is that a party who
secures the judgment by taking recourse to fraud should not
be enabled to enjoy the fruits thereof."
6. To the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Petitioner while filing
his rejoinder, produced the mark-sheets of his B.A. and B.Ed.
examination vide Annexure-15 series and contended that since taking
into account the mark-sheet available under Annexure-15 series
which was produced by the Petitioner at the time of his selection, he
// 17 //
was selected and appointed, no fault can be attributed as against the
Petitioner for such selection and appointment. Taking into account his
selection and appointment as well as long continuance, the order of
termination passed under Annexure-13 is liable for interference of this
Court.
7. I have heard Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for
the Opp. Parties. On the consent of both the Parties, the matter was
heard at the stage of admission and dispose of by the present order.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, it is found that the
Petitioner pursuant to the selection process initiated by the Opp. Party
No. 2 in the year 2003 was appointed as a Sikshya Sahayak vide order
dtd.16.12.2003 and subsequently vide order dtd.28.09.2005 under
Annexure-1 series. It is also found from the record that basing on the
engagement order issued on 28.09.2005 under Annexure-1 series, the
Petitioner was appointed as a junior teacher on completion of 3 years
of service in the year 2008. But for the first time when a show-cause
was issued to the Petitioner by the Opp. Party No. 3 on 17.04.2010
under Annexure-2, the Petitioner as directed submitted his original
certificates and mark-sheets with regard to his educational
qualification. Even though the Petitioner in terms of Annexure-2
// 18 //
submitted his original certificates in support of his educational
qualification, but when another show-cause was issued by the Opp.
Party No. 3 on 28.10.2010 under Annexure-8, the Petitioner
challenging the show-cause approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.
22419 of 2011. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Opp. Party
No. 2 initiated Misc. Case No. 13 of 2011 and in the said Misc. Case
the following order was passed:-
"xxx In the above scenario of facts, the District
Project Co-ordinator,SSA,Bhadrak is directed to
look into the allegation against the petitioner if there
is prima-facie materials on record against the
petitioner. Merely on simply allegation petition
against the petitioner, the District Project Co-
ordinator,SSA,Bhadrak must cause an enquiry and
thereafter can issue further show cause notice to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is disposed
of."
8.1. Subsequently, basing on the enquiry conducted by the Opp. Party
No. 3 and on being satisfied that fraud has been committed by the
Petitioner in submitting fake B.A. and B.Ed. mark-sheets, Opp. Party
No. 2 when issued a show-cause on 29.08.2016 under Annexure-12
proposing therein to terminate the services of the Petitioner on the
ground that the Petitioner has submitted fake B.A. and B.Ed. mark-
sheets for the purpose of his selection as Sikshya Sahayak, Petitioner
challenging the said show-cause approached this Court in W.P.(C)
// 19 //
No. 15497 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd.12.09.2016 when
directed the Opp. Party No. 2 to conduct an enquiry and pass a
reasoned order by affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner,
Opp. Party No. 2 initiated Misc. Case No. 01 of 2016.
8.2. This Court finds that in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2016, Petitioner
was not only afforded with personal hearing through his counsel, but
also Opp. Party No. 2 conducted due enquiry by verifying the mark-
sheet produced by the Petitioner of his B.A. & B.Ed. examination
with the marks indicated in the scrutiny-cum-mark calculation
register, which was countersigned by the Petitioner by agreeing to
such calculation at the time of his selection. On proper verification of
the mark-sheet so produced by the Petitioner of his B.A. & B.Ed.
examination with that of the mark indicated in the scrutiny-cum-
calculation register. Opp. Party No. 2 clearly found that the Petitioner
by producing fake B.A. & B.Ed. mark-sheets was appointed as
Sikshya Sahayak vide order under Annexure-1 series.
8.3. This Court after going through the materials available on record
also finds that vide Annexure-15 series, Petitioner has produced his
original B.A. & B.Ed. mark-sheets. While in the mark sheet issued by
the Utkal University, the Petitioner has secured 503 marks in his B.A.
examination out of 1200 marks and 406 marks in his B.Ed.
examination out of 900 marks, but the Petitioner was selected as
// 20 //
Sikshya Sahayak by taking his mark as 714 marks out of 1200 marks
in his B.A. exam and 526 marks out of 900 marks in his B.Ed.
examination. The Petitioner has also not disputed the cut-off mark of
the selection conducted in the year 2003 in UR category, which was
fixed at 55.31%. Since in spite of opportunity and while filing the writ
petition as well as the rejoinder, Petitioner has failed to produce the
mark-sheet of his B.A. and B.Ed. examination showing his securing
714 marks out of 1200 marks in B.A. and 503 marks out of 900 marks
in his B.Ed. examination, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner
by producing fake B.A. and B.Ed. mark-sheets, has managed to be
selected and appointed in the year 2003 and subsequently in the year
2005.
8.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that
the Petitioner by committing fraud has managed to be selected and
appointed as Sikshya Sahayak vide order under Anenxure-1 series.
Placing reliance on the decisions cited by the learned Addl. Standing
Counsel and in view of the settled legal position that fraud vitiates
everything, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order so passed by the Opp. Party No. 4 on 28.10.2016 under
Annexure-13. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner with regard to promissory estoppel is not acceptable to this
Court as it is found that the Petitioner has committed fraud by
// 21 //
producing fake mark-sheets of his B.A. and B.Ed. examination. This
Court therefore finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned
order at Anexure-13. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition with the prayer as made and dismiss the
same.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 2nd of August, 2023/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Aug-2023 12:22:26
