Mukesh Kumar V. Union Of India And 2 Others

WRIA/14336/2023

AI Insights

Mukesh Kumar, the petitioner, challenged his termination from service, which was based on the cancellation of a caste certificate that he had initially used to secure a position reserved for scheduled tribe candidates. The certificate was later found to be fraudulent and was cancelled by the Tehsildar, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that he had obtained a new, valid caste certificate after his termination. However, the court ruled that eligibility for reservation must be assessed as of the last date of application submission, and any fraud or deceit in obtaining the initial certificate renders the appointment void from the outset.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817355 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Meghmala & ors vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & ors; 2010 (8) SCC 383
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A S G I; KRISHNA AGARAWAL; SANJAY YADAV; SAUMITRA SINGH; TOSHIVA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AKASH DWIVEDI; ASHUTOSH MISHRA
• Keywords: Caste certificate; Eligibility; Forged Document; Fraud; Reservation; Scheduled Tribe; Termination Order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194445 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14336 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Dwivedi,Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Krishna Agarawal,Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Saumitra Singh,Toshiva Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Udai Chandani and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.- 2 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.- 3. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the termination order dated 6th December, 2016 which had been passed on the ground that at the time of selection and appointment in that category in the year 1993, schedule caste certificate furnished by the petitioner to seek appointment in that category was a forged document as the same subsequently came to be cancelled by the competent authority. Against the order of cancellation of caste certificate by the Tehsildar concerned petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 39734 of 2006 which was disposed of with a direction to the Tehsildar concerned to pass order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and when Tehsildar passed the order afresh reiterating cancellation, petitioner approached again this Court vide Writ -C No.- 4179 of 2007. The order passed by the Tehsildar was set aside with a direction to him to decide afresh considering the the adoption deed. 3. Against the aforesaid order the Superintendent of Police of Special Task Force, CBI, New Delhi filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.- 16507 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1903 of 2011) which was allowed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 14th February, 2011 setting aside the order of the High Court and thus order of Tehsildar cancelling the caste certificate on the basis of which petitioner has obtained selection and appointment remained cancelled. The Court returned a finding that Division Bench unfortunately overlooked the manipulations made by the present petitioner. The finding part of the order of Supreme Court and the operative portion of its judgment dated 14th February, 2011 are quoted hereunder: \"Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court overlooked the manipulations made by respondent no 1 and deceit practice by him and allowed the Writ Petition on the spacious ground that adoption deed had not been challenged by anyone and respondent no. 3 did not have the jurisdiction to treat the adoption of nullity. In our view. respondent no. 3 had the jurisdiction to consider whether respondent no. 1 had obtained caste certificate by playing fraud and deceit and affirmative conclusion recorded by him did not suffer any legal infirmity which could justify interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is another reason why the High Court should not have tinkered with the order of respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 could not explain as to why his adoption was not translated in the form of a written deed for 23 years. Everything was done in 1993 just after publication of the advertisement for recruitment of Inspectors in Income Tax Department. He has also not explained as to why he inserted advertisements in 1999 by claiming himself to be a member of Aggarwal/Goyal caste and married a girl belonging to that caste. How is so called adoptive parents took old age pension from 2001 to 2004 by claiming that they are issue less has also not been explained by respondent No. 1. His biological mother's participation in the execution of adoption deed is quite understandable. She must have done so out of her love and affection for his son, who had by that time crossed the upper age limit for employment as a general category candidate. However, the High Court was duty bound to read between the lines and decline relief to respondent No 1 by invoking the settled principle that the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if it results in perpetuation of illegality, fraud and deceit. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed.\" 4. Thus, it is clear that for all practical and legal purposes caste certificate remained cancelled and, therefore, the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the basis of such fraudulent caste certificate was rightly cancelled under the order impugned. 5. Petitioner never challenged the order of termination from service before the Court but now has approached the Court on the ground that he has been issued with fresh caste certificate. 6. I am not impressed by the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that eligibility to possess essential qualification and claim for reservation is to be seen as on the last date of submission of application form under an advertisement issued for selection and appointment for the post advertised. 7. Admittedly petitioner was never issued with any caste certificate and whatever was issued to him was a fraudulent one. In the case of Meghmala & ors vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & ors; 2010 (8) SCC 383, the Supreme Court vide paragraphs 33 & 34 has held thus: \"33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression \"fraud\" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170). 34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836).\" 8. In view of the above, therefore, petitioner was not eligible for reservation as scheduled tribe candidate and the fact that petitioner was selected and appointed as scheduled tribe candidate, makes his selection and appointment is void ab initio for want of requisite eligibility for promotion in the category he had applied for. Any subsequent acquisition of eligibility or qualification will not make good deficiency that a candidate had in terms of eligibility at the time of submitting of the application form. This is a case where petitioner had benefited himself with the selection and appointment by committing fraud upon the respondent. 9. Thus, I do not see any justification to interfere with the order of termination from service. 10. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "