Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 14 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 264/2014
Balram
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
14/12/2021
The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by
the appellant-petitioner Balram being aggrieved of the order dated
09.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3327/2008, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and a direction was
given to prosecute the petitioner for filing fabricated documents
on record.
The petitioner was employed as a Book-Lifter by the
Government College Development Committee, Suratgarh on fixed
honorarium basis. He approached this court by filing the writ
petition for challenging the advertisement issued by the
respondents inviting applications for fresh appointment on the
post of Book-Lifter on temporary/adhoc basis for the academic
session 2008-2009. Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner
filed a copy of the order dated 07.07.2004.
(2 of 3) [SAW-264/2014]
The respondents filed a reply with a pertinent assertion
that the petitioner had fabricated the said order and the word
"vLFkkbZ" was changed to "LFkkbZ" in order to take undue
advantage in the court. While deciding the writ petition, this court
accepted the plea of the respondents that the petitioner had
fabricated the said document and accordingly, directed
prosecution of the petitioner in this case.
At the outset, while opening the arguments on behalf of
the appellant-petitioner, learned counsel Mr. H.S. Sidhu submitted
that pursuant to the registration of the FIR in compliance of the
order passed by this court, the petitioner has already left the job
of Book-Lifter. However, his prayer is that the direction given by
this court to register FIR is totally unjustified.
We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by the petitioner's counsel and the learned Additional
Advocate General and have gone through the material available on
record.
Suffice it to say that the petitioner was engaged on a
fixed honorarium basis without undergoing any formal selection
process. He challenged the advertisement dated 07.04.2008,
whereby the respondents invited applications from eligible persons
for job of Book-Lifter for the academic session 2008-2009 on fixed
honorarium. Endeavour of the respondents while issuing the
advertisement was to conduct a transparent process for selection
and thus, the petitioner could not have raised any grievance
regarding the same.
Be that as it may. Learned Single Bench after
analyzing the record has recorded a finding in the impugned order
dated 09.11.2013 regarding the document filed alongwith the writ
(3 of 3) [SAW-264/2014]
petition being fabricated and thus, the direction given to lodge the
compliant was absolutely justified. Nonetheless, as the issue
whether the document filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ
petition was actually fabricated or not would be the subject matter
of the enquiry/trial of the criminal case, the findings recorded in
the order dated 09.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench
that the document in question is interpolated would prejudice the
principles of fair trial and hence, we make it clear that none of the
observations made in the order dated 09.11.2013 shall prejudice
the defence of the petitioner in the investigation/trial of the
complaint lodged against him in pursuance of the said order. On
merits, the order dated 09.11.2013 does not warrant any
interference as the same does not suffer from any infirmity
whatsoever.
The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
84-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
