S.Jayanth Kumar, vs The Secretary,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3125 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                 WRIT PETITION No.23641 OF 2002

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

      The petitioners before this Court have filed the

present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated

11.10.2002        passed       in     O.A.No.1531         of    1997    with

V.M.A.No.768        of    1997,           O.A.No.5587      of   1997    and

O.A.No.6141         of    1997            by     the    Andhra     Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad dismissing the

Original Applications and vacating the interim order dated

10.04.1997.


      The      facts      of        the        case    reveal    that    the

petitioners/applicants have obtained diploma in Medical

Laboratory Technician from Rami Educational Academy,

Hyderabad and thereafter they were registered with

Employment Exchange. The Government started process of

recruitment for the post of Lab Technician Grade-II in the

Office of District Medical and Health Officer, Adilabad and

the names of the petitioners/applicants are forwarded by

the Employment Exchange. The petitioners/applicants

were declared successful in the written and oral tests

conducted on 11.08.1995. However, no posting orders were

issued in their favour at the relevant point of time. The
                                  2




petitioners/applicants submitted various representations

to the District Collector, Adilabad with a request for

issuance of posting orders and the Government of Andhra

Pradesh sought some clarification from the Secretary to the

Government,       Health,    Medical     and     Family     Welfare

Department       vide   letter       dated     30.09.1995.      The

petitioners/applicants' contention is that in spite of

repeated reminders, no posting orders were issued in their

favour and therefore, they submitted representations to the

Minister    of   Scheduled    Tribe    Welfare   and      Physically

Handicapped as well as to the District Collector, Adilabad

and the Minister addressed a letter to the District Collector

to issue appointment orders to the petitioners/applicants

and finally the Director of Health addressed a letter on

02.11.1995 to the District Collector, Adilabad as well as

the District Medical and Health Officer, Adilabad for

issuance of appointment orders. The District Medical and

Health Officer, Adilabad after examining the matter issued

appointment orders in favour of the petitioners/ applicants

on 16.11.1995 appointing them as Lab Technicians

Grade-II.


     The petitioners/applicants' grievance is that while

they were working on the post of Lab Technician, the

Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Department issued
                                      3




a Memo dated 07.01.1997 stating that G.O.Ms.No.1073,

dated 13.10.1983, which recognised Rami Educational

Academy, Hyderabad, is a fake document and the Memo

dated       27.10.1995        issued         consequent           to    the

G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 is also not genuine.

The petitioners/applicants being aggrieved by the said

Memo,      dated      07.01.1997     has      approached         the   State

Administrative        Tribunal      and   the        said    Administrative

Tribunal on 10.04.1997 has granted an interim order

directing the parties to maintain status quo and finally the

State Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the Original

Applications, by Order dated 11.10.2002.


      The basic issue involved in the present case is

whether the qualification obtained by the petitioners/

applicants is from a recognised institution i.e., whether the

diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician issued by the

Rami Educational Academy, Hyderabad has been issued by

the institution recognised by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh or not?


      Reliance was placed by the petitioners/applicants

over G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 which recognised

the     institution    by   the      State      of     Andhra     Pradesh.

Undisputably,         the   facts    of      the      case    reveal    that
                                      4




G.O.Ms.No.1073,            dated     13.10.1983        was       a         fake

Government Order. In the year 1983, only 833 Government

Orders were issued and the number of the Government

Order which recognised the institution was 1073. The

petitioners/applicants got an appointment on the basis of

a forged and fabricated document and the Government

only has clarified the issue by issuing a fresh Government

Memo dated 07.01.1997 stating categorically that no such

Government Order dated 13.10.1983 was issued and it is a

fake Government Order.


     The petitioners/applicants have stated before this

Court   that    the    institution        in   question    has        issued

advertisement inviting applications for the diploma course

and in the said advertisement, it was declared that it is a

recognised institution.


     In the considered opinion of this Court, merely

because the institution has projected itself as a recognised

institution,   it    can     never   be    presumed       that       it     was

recognised institution unless and until it was recognised

by the Government. It is really shocking that a forged

document       was    also    prepared         on   13.10.1983            giving

recognition to the institution by persons having vested

interest in the matter. The genesis of the appointment of
                                        5




the petitioners/applicants is on the basis of a fake

document, the institution in question was not recognised

at any point of time by any authority and therefore, as the

appointment was based upon the fake document, the show

cause notice was rightly issued by the respondents. The

Tribunal, after hearing the parties at length, in paragraphs

15 to 22, has held as under:-

"15. Heard both sides and perused the material papers on record.

16. There are 18 applicants in O.A.No.1531/97 and one each in O.A.Nos.5587/97 and 6141/97. All of them are appointment as Lab Technician Grade-II by the DM&HO, Adilabad, who is the appointing authority for the said posts. All of them have produced certificates of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technicians issued by Rami Educational Academy, Hyderabad. Even before appointing them, after the examination and selection, the DM&HO, sought some clarification from the Heal of the Department and the Government to know whether the said Rami Educational Academy is a recognised institute, in view of the doubtfulness of the certificates and GOs enclosed by the applicants. The Government gave a clarification through Memo dated 27.10.1995. The respondents contend through their counter that the said clarification was issued by the Government, without proper verification of records and that G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 was never issued by the Government and found to be a fake G.O., wherein the wording is quite different from the wordings normally used in the GOs at Government level and even the date of G.O.Ms.No.273 mentioned in the reference of the fake G.O.Ms.No.1073 is wrongly shown as dated 24.04.1983 though it was issued on 24.04.1989. The official respondents further contended that during the year 1983, only 883 GOs

were issued in Ms., series and even in the RT., series G.O.Rt.No.1073 was issued on 20.06.1983 (not on 13.10.1983) with different subject, from 'K' section of the Medical and Health Department and hence, the said G.O.Ms.No.1073 is a fake one created by some vested interests to accrue benefit to some ineligible individuals.

17. The special rules applicable for appointment to the post of Lab Technicians Grade-II, during the year of appointment of the applicants, read as follows:-

"Must have passed Intermediate examination of a University recognised in India or established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution recognised by the University Grants Commission;

Must possess a certificate of Certified Lab Technician Course or recognised institutions shown in Annexure-II (or from any other institution recognised for the purpose by Government);

Provided that, if a candidate with a certificate of a certified Lab Technician is not available, a candidate with a certificate of Certified Lab Attendant may be appointed but he should pass the Certified Lab Technician Course within the period of the probation."

18. As per the special rules quoted above, the applicants must have passed the Laboratory Technician Course recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Neither the Rami Educational Academy nor the certificates issued by them will stand to be recognised ones in view of the submission of the respondents in the counter that G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 recognising Rami Educational Academy itself is a fake G.O. The applicants in these O.As., are ineligible as per special rules to be appointed to the posts of Lab Technician Grade-II. They were appointed in the year 1995 and the non-genuiness of the Government Memo No.15326/H2/95, dated 27.10.1995 and the non- existence of G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 was discovered in the year 1997 and only then, the Secretary to

Government issued the impugned Memo No.2987/H2/96-3 dated 07.01.1997. Hence, there is no illegality in the Memo, dated 07.01.1997, which was issued when it was found that G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 is a fake G.O., and the Memo dated 27.10.1995 is issued without proper verification of records.

19. The mere fact of being selected in the written and oral examination will not make the applicants' claim for the post of Lab Technician Grade-II, any better, if they are ab initio ineligible and when their applications were considered and appointment orders were issued on the basis of fake documents. If for a post, Graduation is the minimum prescribed qualification and a candidate with only SSC or Intermediate, undergoes the written and oral examinations and come out meritorious, can he be given appointment to the said post, when his initial candidature for the examination was allowed by mistake?

20. Further, the applicants claim in their O.As., that before their admission to the said institute, they were led to believe that Rami Educational Academy is a recognised one based on the advertisement of the Institution. But they could not produce any documents to prove the same. Regarding the other contention that even those candidates without the Laboratory Technician course were given appointment to the post of Lab Technician in some districts is also not substantiated by rules. The proviso the rule only states that if eligible candidates are not available with Lab Technician course, those who have Lab Attendant training certificates can be appointed. The case of the applicants is not that they are holding even Lab Attendant Training certificates.

21. They were appointed in the year 1995 and in the year 1997, the fakeness of the documents relied upon by them came to light and the Government issued the impugned Memo dated 07.01.1997 and further action by way of show cause notice was initiated. The applicants are continuing as per the status quo orders of the Tribunal granted in these

three O.As. Though the detection by the Government about the fakeness of the documents produced by the applicants was within two years of their appointment, they are continuing for over 5 years, as per the status quo orders of the Tribunal in these OAs. As such, they might have put in over 7 years of service as on today.

22. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, there is no illegality in the impugned Memo No.2987/H2/96-3, dated 07.01.1997 and the consequential show cause notice in Rc.No.3107/E7/97 dated 20.09.1997 and hence, the OAs are liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. V.M.a.No.768/97 is allowed by vacating the interim orders. No costs."

In the considered opinion of this Court, as Rami

Educational Academy was not a recognised institution, by

any stretch of imagination, the petitioners/applicants

could not have been appointed on the post of Lab

Technician Grade-II and the State Government was

justified in issuing show cause notices. The petitioners/

applicants were appointed purely on temporary basis and

their services are liable to be terminated without assigning

any reason or issuing any notice as per Rule 10(a)(e) of the

Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules,

1996 and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in

dismissing the Original Applications. In this context, it is

apt to quote the Rule 10(a)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State

and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as under:-

         "10.   Temporary      appointment       including
   appointments       by        direct        recruitment,

recruitment/appointment by transfer or by promotion:-

(a) Where it is necessary in the public interest to fill emergently a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, calss or category and if the filling of such vacancy in accordance with the rules is likely to result in undue delay, the appointing authority may appoint a person temporarily, otherwise than in accordance with the said rules, either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by appointment by transfer, as may be specified as the method of appointment in respect of that post, in the special rules.

(e)The appointing authority shall have the right to terminate the service of a person who has been appointment under sub-rule (a), at any time, without assigning any reason and without any notice, if appointed by direct recruitment, revert to a lower category or grade, if promoted, or revert to the post from which such appointment by transfer was made, if appointed by transfer."

In the light of the aforesaid provision, the

petitioners/applicants, who were appointed purely on

temporary basis, have no right to continue in the service

and the appointing authority has right to terminate the

petitioners/applicants without assigning any reason and

without any notice, when the diplomas obtained by them

are from the institution which is recognised by virtue of a

fake Government Order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has

stated that a criminal case was also registered with

C.C.No.230 of 2009 and by an order dated 05.05.2014, the

First Class Judicial Magistrate, Adilabad, discharged all

the petitioners/applicants meaning thereby they were not

involved in the cheating or misrepresentation or forging

any document. In the considered opinion of this Court,

merely because the petitioners/applicants have been

discharged in a criminal case, the fact remains that the

G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 was forged and

fabricated document. At no point of time, the institution

was having recognition and it was only on the strength of

the G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 treating the

institution as a recognised institution, the petitioners/

applicants were granted jobs by the State Government and

therefore, discharge of the petitioners/applicants in the

criminal case have got no meaning.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has

also placed reliance on the Judgments delivered in M.Paul

Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1 and G.M.Tank v. State

of Gujarat2. The Judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners/applicants are of no help to the

petitioners/applicants. The petitioners/applicants were

appointed by holding that they are having qualification

from a recognised institution whereas the institution was

not at all recognised and it is an undisputed fact and

therefore, the question of allowing the writ petition does

not arise.

(1999) 3 SCC 679

(2006) 5 SCC 446

In the considered opinion of this Court, fraud vitiates

everything and in the present case, high level fraud has

taken place, meaning thereby a forged document was

created i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983

recognising Rami Educational Academy, Hyderabad and

therefore as the Government Order was fake, the Rami

Educational Academy was not having any recognition and

the diplomas obtained by the petitioners/applicants are of

no use. The recruitment rules governing the field provide

for a diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician Course

from a recognised institution and the institution in

question was not at all recognised. Therefore, the Tribunal

was justified in dismissing the Original Applications.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the

petitioners/applicants are not entitled for any relief of

whatsoever kind and the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous

petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_____________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, J 29.10.2021

Pln