Orissa High Court
Himansu Sekhar Meher vs State Of Odisha And Others on 23 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.768 of 2024
Himansu Sekhar Meher .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Ramanath Acharya, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. A. Dash, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 23rd April, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The appellant who approached the writ Court challenging
the selection of the respondent No.6 in the post of a Hindi teacher
under the reserved category is beleaguered by the distinction
between the genuinity of the certificate and invalidity of the
certificate. It admits no ambiguity that the candidature was offered
by the appellant pursuant to the advertisement published for
recruitment of various posts including the Hindi teacher and
claimed at serial No.6 in the list prepared in this regard.
Undeniably, the candidate appearing at serial No.1 has been
appointed in the post earmarked for unreserved category but the
dispute hinges on the other post under the reserved category where
the respondent No.6 has been appointed.
2. The writ petition containing several paragraphs is aimed
towards the genuinity and the authenticity of the certificate issued
by a society/institution which according to the petitioner was
incompetent as it has been blacklisted. Since the serious question
relating to the genuinity and the authenticity of the certificate being
one of the eligible criteria for such post was raised before the
learned single Judge at the time of admission, the Court recorded
such submission and directed the respondent-authorities to file
their affidavits dealing with such allegations. After exchange of the
pleadings, the writ petition was decided and the learned single
Judge does not find the allegations made in the writ petition to
have been substantiated by cogent evidence.
3. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant
vociferously submits that the findings returned by the learned
single Judge is contrary to the pleadings of the parties, more
particularly, the State in the affidavit has categorically admitted
that the certificate is ingenuine and/or fake. It is arduously
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a person
obtaining certificate from an institution which was blacklisted,
cannot reap the benefit thereof and the authority ought to have
rejected his candidature on the premise of lack of requisite
educational qualification. It is thus submitted that the candidates
who were placed above the appellant in the merit list have sought
for clarification regarding the issuance of the said certificate but till
date, there is no response from the competent authority which thus
implies that the certificate is fake and should not be relied on.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Dash, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State submits that the authorities after taking all
reasonable care have filled up the posts by appointing the
respondent No.6 and, therefore, merely on the unsubstantiated
allegations levelled by the appellant in the writ petition, no
interference is warranted which in fact, is held by the learned
single Judge. It is submitted that there is no infirmity and/or
illegality in the judgment and order of the learned single Judge
and, therefore, the writ appeal does not deserve admission nor
should be entertained.
5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste
candidates has been filled up by a candidate belonging to a
Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC), which is
impermissible in law.
6. On the conspectus of the aforesaid pleadings and the
submissions advanced before us, let us consider whether the
impugned judgment warrants any interference on the points urged
before us.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner/appellant was shown at serial
number below the position of opposite party no.6 in the merit list
for the post of a Hindi teacher. The petitioner has miserably failed
to produce any document that the certificate issued by the
institution/society is fake and fabricated. There is a stark
distinction between a certificate which is fake and the certificate
which can be termed as invalid. In former case, the very existence
of the certificate is in issue and the institution or the society
competent to issue the said certificate, in fact, did not issue such
certificate. In later case, the institute which issued the certificate,
the genuinity thereof cannot be questioned but was incompetent to
issue such certificate.
8. The moment a fake certificate is relied upon to secure the
public employment, the Court must take a serious view in this
regard as a person should not be permitted to secure the
employment on the basis of a fake, fabricated and manufactured
document.
9. We do not find any iota of piece of evidence having
produced by the appellant that the certificates relied upon by the
respondent No.6 is a fake one as the institution/society did not
come forward and raise questions on the very existence thereof.
Rather the pleading proceeds on the black listing of the
institution/society and the reliance is heavily placed upon the
documents where such issue was raised and, in fact, reached to the
domain of the Inspector General of Registration (IGR).
10. The management and the functioning of the institution was
an issue as the formation of executive committee/the governing
body of the said society was questioned as not validly constituted
which was ultimately decided by the said authority. Mere defective
body be it executive or governing does not automatically invite
black listing of the institution rather it relates to its governance,
management and the administration and in order to black list the
institution, the proceeding is to be drawn with such specification.
11. Be that as it may, our attention was drawn to the relevant
document from where we do not find that the competent authority
has issued an order black listing the said institution/society and,
therefore, we do not intend to deal deep into the same. The record
would further reveal that the certificate so relied upon by the
respondent No.6 was issued prior to the date of an application or at
best an advertisement and the proceeding for defective committee
of the society was decided at a later point of time.
12. We thus do not find that the certificate so relied upon by
the respondent No.6 can be said to be a fake or invalid one and,
therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is
unacceptable to us.
13. An interesting submission is advanced by the appellant
before us that the moment the Court has recorded that the
certificate is ingenuine and directed the respondent-authorities to
file their affidavit, it tantamounts to an acceptance thereof and the
sanctity of such recording cannot be doubted. We are unimpressed
with the aforesaid submissions.
14. In a legal parlance at the time of an admission or passing
an interim order, the Court, on the basis of the submissions
advanced by the appellant/petitioner, directed the affidavits to be
filed which can never assume finality in all tier of the adjudication
in an adversarial system. It is merely a prima facie finding which is
tentative in nature and does not pertake the character of a final
opinion having expressed pending final adjudication in the
proceedings. It would be misnomer to suggest that the prima facie
findings recorded at the time of an interim order shall remain
binding at the stage of final decision nor the law prescribed such
concept of the test of finality.
15. In order to buttress the aforesaid notion, the hypothetical
examples can aptly be applied in a proceeding filed before the civil
Court, wherein and an application for injunction to protect the
interest of the parties pending the final adjudication in the suit is
passed upon recording the finding thereupon. If such finding is
assumed to be final, there is no point of taking evidence from the
parties to decide the issues to be framed therein. The interim order
is passed in aid of the final relief, more particularly, to protect the
interest of the parties or desisting them from altering their positions
until a final adjudication is made. Precisely, for such reason, it is
called a prima facie finding which is a tentative in nature and does
not have any persuasive impact at the time of final adjudication. It
would invite an anomalous situation in the jurisprudence if the
Court after recording the submission of the petitioner/appellant
invited the other side to file an affidavit, to treat such finding to be
final and not susceptible to be tinkered with at any stage of the
proceedings. We thus do not find that the order directing the
parties to exchange affidavits shall be of any assistance to the
appellant on the point that the Court has held the certificate to be
fake and/or ingenuine.
16. It leads us to another point that the candidate placed in an
above position could not have been appointed to a post earmarked
for Scheduled Castes. We have been taken to the office order
No.2896 dated 6th December, 2019 which contains the names of
the successful candidates in the order of merit. The respondent
No.6 in the instant appeal was placed at serial No.4 for the post of
a Hindi teacher and one Jagannath Bag was placed at serial No.5 as
a Scheduled Caste candidate. The name of the appellant does not
appear in the said merit list.
17. However, in course of the hearing, we find the tabular
sheet prepared by the authority on the basis of a merit depicting the
marks secured by each candidate in the said recruitment process,
wherefrom it appears that the appellant offered his candidature
under the same category that of the respondent No.6, i.e., SEBC
and secured 187.04 marks. On the other hand, the respondent No.6
who also offered his candidature under SEBC secured 216.63
marks much higher than the total marks obtained by the appellant.
18. It appears that the respondent No.6 though claimed as a
Socially and Economically Backward Classes category person but
was placed in the UR category being more meritorious which is
not impermissible in law. The merit cannot be compromised nor to
be ignored in a public employment. The meritorious candidate
deserves appointment in comparison to a less meritorious
candidate, which appears in the instant case to have been followed
by the authorities. Even if the respondent No.6 is a Socially and
Economically Backward Classes category person yet, being more
meritorious was placed under the UR category and since only one
post was earmarked for such category, we do not find any infirmity
and/or any illegality in appointing respondent No.6 in such
position.
19. From whatever angle we look at do not find any merit in
the stand of the appellant.
20. The appeal does not invite an admission and, therefore, is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given on
a priority basis.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:54:00
