KHUB RAM Vs DALBIR SINGH & ORS.
Bench: FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: C.A. No.-002734-002734 / 2012
Diary number: 4261 / 2011
Advocates: SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs
S. JANANI
Page 1
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2734 OF 2012
Khub Ram …..Appellant
Versus
Dalbir Singh & Ors. …..Respondents
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4097 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.15871 of 2012]
Mahavir Prasad …..Appellant
Versus
Dalbir Singh & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. The Civil Appeal and the Special Leave Petition have been heard
together because claim of the parties is in respect of same post of
Chief Inspector in the Haryana Roadways to which the appellant -
Khub Ram was initially appointed in the year 1990 pursuant to his
selection in response to advertisement dated 07.05.1989. First
respondent – Dalbir Singh challenged the selection and appointment
of appellant Khub Ram by filing C.W.P. No.12711 of 1992 in the High
1
Page 2
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
Court. That writ petition was allowed on 01.10.2010 by a learned
Single Judge. Not only the appointment of Khub Ram and one more
person was quashed but a direction was also issued to appoint writ
petitioner – Dalbir Singh from a retrospective date with all
consequential benefits. Appellant’s appeal before the Division Bench
was dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioner of S.L.P. –
Mahavir Prasad has sought permission to file the Special Leave
Petition against judgment of learned Single Judge as well as of
Division Bench on the ground that he is one amongst the selected
candidates and has a better claim for appointment than respondent –
Dalbir Singh and hence order should be passed for appointing him in
place of Khub Ram. This judgment shall govern both the matters
which involve common issues of facts and law.
2. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (C) No.15871 of 2012 is
granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
3. For the sake of convenience the facts have been noticed mainly
from the records of Civil Appeal No.2734 of 2012 except where
indicated otherwise. For deciding the two issues arising in these
cases it is not necessary to go deeper into the facts except to notice
that as per terms of advertisement dated 07.05.1989, besides a
Degree of Graduation and Hindi upto Matriculation level and age
qualification of 17-35 years, it was essential for the candidate to have
two years’ experience in Government/Semi-government or Public
Undertakings and Roadways Fleet. The appellant’s selection was
questioned in the writ petition mainly on the ground that he did not
2
Page 3
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
possess the requisite experience and the two certificates submitted by
him were from private transporters. There were strong arguments
advanced against the selection of appellant and some others on the
allegation that political influence had been exercised in their favour
and it was specifically pleaded that the appellant was selected in the
second round of selection as he belonged to village of the then Chief
Minister. The learned Single Judge noticed that appellant’s
experience certificates showed that he had worked with a private Bus
Service from June 1986 to June 1988 as a Field Staff (Checker) for
two years and also with another private roadways as Assistant
Manager between 01.09.1984 to 10.03.1987. The courts below
noticed that both the certificates contradicted each other because
between June 1986 to 10.03.1987 the appellant as per his certificates
had worked in two different capacities with two different private bus
service. The court also found that the two years’ experience as per
terms of the advertisement could not be satisfied by showing
experience of working with private transporters as they were not
covered by the expression ‘Government/Semi-government or Public
Undertakings and Roadways Fleet’.
4. On behalf of Mahavir Prasad it has been pleaded that the Select
List contained names of 14 persons which included Khub Ram and
Ram Niwas Rathi whose appointments were quashed by the learned
Single Judge as well as name of appellant – Mahavir Prasad but not
that of first respondent – Dalbir Singh. On account of his place in the
Select List Mahavir Prasad represented for appointment and
3
Page 4
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
ultimately filed a writ petition for that purpose bearing C.W.P.
No.17600 of 1991 but no relief was given to him by the final order
dated 04.08.1992 which for some reason was challenged by the State
of Haryana before the Division Bench but not by Mahavir Prasad. But
when he learnt that respondent – Dalbir Singh has succeeded in
getting a judgment against Khub Ram and a direction for his own
appointment, Mahavir Prasad chose to challenge those judgments in
favour of Dalbir Singh by preferring the Special Leave Petition directly
in this Court and the same was tagged for hearing along with the Civil
Appeal.
5. On behalf of appellant - Khub Ram, Mr. P.N. Misra, Sr.
Advocate raised a strong objection that writ petition should not have
been allowed in 2010 in view of delay in impleading the appellant as
late as in 2004 when he had already earned a promotion on
01.03.1996 and a second promotion as Traffic Manager on
05.05.2000. It was also highlighted that because of interim order of
this Court he has continued in service and has been promoted as
General Manager in December 2014. He pointed out that objection
was taken to the impleadment application dated 16.02.2004 on
grounds of delay as well as promotion already earned by the
appellant. In support of the aforesaid plea reliance was placed on
judgment of this Court in the case of Jiten Kumar Sahoo v.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 520 and in the case of
Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar (2001) 3 SCC 328.
4
Page 5
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Misra also submitted that
experience in private roadways fleet would meet the requirement of
advertisement if the word ‘and’ appearing before the ‘Roadways Fleet’
is understood and treated as ‘or’. According to him, now when the
appellant - Khub Ram has worked for long years, he cannot be denied
continuance in service for lack of minimum experience at the stage of
recruitment. He further pointed that the appellant noticed the error
in experience certificate dated 05.06.1989 relating to experience of two
years in Shyam Bus Service from June 1986 to June 1988 and
therefore he obtained a corrected certificate on the next day, i.e.,
06.06.1989 showing such experience to be from June 1987 to June
1988. According to the appellant, the corrected experience certificate
dated 06.06.1989 is on record as Annexure P-2.
7. In reply, Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate for first respondent has
pointed out that issue of delay in impleading the appellant as a
respondent in the writ petition was not argued before the learned
Single Judge or before the Division Bench. He pointed out that in
respect of two years of working experience in paragraph 2 of the writ
petition it was claimed that the experience required was of working in
a Government or semi-government department and such claim was
admitted by the State, second respondent in para 2 of its reply. It was
also shown that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench have returned concurrent findings that the appellant – Khub
Ram did not meet the experience qualification and not only his
certificates were from private bus operators but also the same were
5
Page 6
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
untrustworthy because of apparent conflict and overlapping of a
particular period in both the certificates.
8. Anticipating the arguments on behalf of appellant – Mahavir
Prasad in the light of pleadings in the appeal filed by him, Mr. Vikas
Singh, learned senior counsel for first respondent highlighted that no
other claimant for the post joined the litigation when first respondent
preferred the connected writ petition in the year 1992 and even till
2010 when the writ petition was allowed, no other candidate came
forward with a rival claim and in such circumstances writ court
committed no error in directing for appointment of first respondent as
a consequence of setting aside the appointment of appellant – Khub
Ram and another person.
9. Before adverting to the claims of first respondent and similar
claim of appellant – Mahavir Prasad for appointment to the post held
by the appellant – Khub Ram, it would be appropriate to first examine
the merit of appeal preferred by appellant – Khub Ram. We have
carefully looked into the averments made in the writ petition, the reply
filed by State and other respondents as well as the judgment of the
learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. We find no good
reason to take a different view in respect of the finding that the
appellant lacked the essential qualification of experience because his
experience certificates were only from private bus operators. It is also
found that even the alleged corrected certificate said to be dated
06.06.1989 contained in Annexure P-2 is an unreliable document
inasmuch as the date 06.06.1989 is clearly a subsequent correction
6
Page 7
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
without any authorization by way of counter signature and so is the
case with the words and letters ‘June 1987’ which have been altered
subsequently by converting ‘1986’ to ‘1987’. Even after such
unauthorized corrections the total experience as per last line of the
certificate remains two years. Had the concerned Bus Service issued
a fresh corrected certificate then the experience from June 1987 to
June 1988 could not have been certified to be experience for two
years. The list of dates also has been subsequently corrected to show
the date of experience certificate, Annexure P-2 as 06.06.1989 in place
of 05.06.1989. This appears to have been done at the instance of the
appellant to justify his stand and apparently a bogus claim that he
had obtained a correct certificate on the very next date when he found
mistakes in the certificates dated 05.06.1989. Had this been the case,
there was no occasion for submission of the certificate dated
05.06.1989 with his application which issue has been discussed in
detail by the learned Single Judge.
10. Had the appellant not committed such acts for obtaining
selection and appointment, we could have considered the issue of
delay as well as judgments supporting such a claim. However, Mr.
Patwalia has rightly submitted that delay in impleading the appellant
could not weigh with this Court when a case of fraudulent entry into
service has been found by the learned Single Judge as well as Division
Bench and an attempt has been made by the appellant even to
mislead this Court by producing Annexure P-2 and claiming it to be
copy of the corrected certificate freshly issued on 06.06.1989. Such
7
Page 8
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
conduct of the appellant in our considered view disentitles the
appellant – Khub Ram to get any relief under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Mr. Patwalia has rightly placed reliance to
support the aforesaid submissions, on a judgment of this Court in the
case of Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383. The
law relating to effect of fraud upon a competent authority to get an
appointment/office as well as effect of fraud upon court has been
discussed in detail in paragraphs 28 to 36 of the said judgment with
which we are in respectful agreement. As a result, we hold that the
appellant – Khub Ram is not entitled to hold the office which he
obtained by submitting questionable certificates of experience and
more so when he lacked the essential qualification of working
experience in a Government/Semi-government/Public Sector
Undertaking. Hence his appeal is dismissed.
11. The next question is whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case the direction of the High Court to appoint first respondent
from a retrospective date along with consequential benefits deserves to
be upheld or not, particularly when a strong challenge has been made
to such direction through a Special Leave Petition of Mahavir Prasad.
On this issue Mr. Patwalia, learned senior advocate appearing for
Mahavir Prasad has shown from the pleadings that while Mahavir
Prasad was at serial no.9 of the Select List containing 14 names
prepared for appointment to 5 advertised posts, first respondent
Dalbir Singh did not find any place in such Select List. This fact
escaped the attention of learned Single Judge as well as Division
8
Page 9
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
Bench possibly because there was no rival claimant to point out such
shortcoming in the case of writ petitioner – Dalbir Singh.
12. Mr. Patwalia has shown from the supplementary affidavit filed
in the Special Leave Petition to support the application for
condonation of delay, that as far back as on 25.08.1993 the High
Court had passed an order in the writ petition directing the writ
petitioner to implead the selected candidates (emphasis added) who
are likely to be affected by the result of the present writ petition. The
writ petitioner was given liberty to file an application for early hearing
after impleading the affected party. The writ petitioner filed the
impleadment application only for adding Khub Ram and one another
person and did not implead all the selected candidates. As a result
appellant – Mahavir Prasad was denied the opportunity of contesting
the claim of the writ petitioner by placing the relevant correct facts
particularly the fact that Dalbir Singh was not a selected candidate.
13. A number of judgments including State of Mysore v. K.N.
Chandrasekhara AIR 1965 SC 532 and R.S. Mittal v. Union of India
1995 Supp. (2) SCC 230 were relied upon by Mr. Patwalia in support
of his submission that if challenge to an appointment succeeds, the
court will direct for appointment against consequent vacancy only as
per the merit list prepared for the purpose of such appointment. The
list has to be given due weightage unless the court has proceeded to
quash the Select List itself. Since the proposition is well founded in
law and there is no caveat on this issue, there is no need to discuss
the case law on the subject in any detail.
9
Page 10
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
14. Learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has submitted that
Khub Ram was ineligible for want of a requisite experience and hence
by working on the post as claimed by him for subsequent two years he
cannot get the required eligibility. He placed reliance upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of Central Bank of India v.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (2008) 13 SCC 170. That judgment
was rendered in a case where the caste certificate which was the basis
for claiming and getting appointment was found to be false. The
court, in the facts of the case held the action of the applicant
concerned to be fraudulent and on that basis, after discussing the
relevant case law in detail in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, declined to
endorse the lenient view taken by the High Court and instead, upheld
the order of termination of service of the concerned employee with a
sound reasoning - “the selection of the employee was conceived in
deceit and, therefore, could not be saved by equitable considerations”.
According to learned counsel for the State Dalbir Singh did not find
place in the list of selected candidates and hence it would not be
proper to uphold the direction for his appointment and if Mahavir’s
claim finds favour then the authority concerned may be directed to
consider the claim of all selected candidates including that of Mahavir
Prasad but only against original post, if available. The appointment
should not be ordered from any retrospective date or with any
consequential benefits.
15. There is no dispute that first respondent – Dalbir Singh was
only an applicant and was not among the selected 14 candidates. In
10
Page 11
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
that view of the matter, the High Court was misled to issue a direction
for his appointment and that too from an earlier date when Khub Ram
was appointed, and with consequential benefits. Such directions
could not have been issued without considering the claims of other
persons in the Select List. For that reason, the directions issued in
favour of first respondent are set aside. To that extent, appeal of
Mahavir Prasad has to be allowed. However, the other prayer made
on behalf of Mahavir Prasad that authorities be directed to offer him
appointment or consider his claim, in our considered view cannot be
allowed on account of the fact that writ petition of Mahavir Prasad
filed in 1991 was decided against him by order dated 04.08.1992
passed in C.W.P.No.17600 of 1991. Rightly or wrongly the High Court
held that he could not claim any right of appointment on account of a
place in the Select List. That judgment attained finality. Mahavir
Prasad chose not to appeal against that order nor he challenged the
appointment of any of the persons selected and appointed. His claim
thus suffers from res judicata as well as acquiescence and estoppel.
In that view of the matter and also for the reason that a long period of
more than 25 years has passed since the preparation of the Select
List, in our view it would be inappropriate to grant any relief which
may require the authorities to examine the claim of persons in the
Select List for appointment to the original post which may not even be
available after lapse of so many years. We have been told that
Mahavir is presently about 50 years of age and has not crossed the
age of superannuation and is still working on another post with
11
Page 12
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
Haryana Roadways. That in our opinion, will not change the relevant
factors indicated above. Hence we are not persuaded to grant any
further relief to Mahavir Prasad and his appeal is allowed only in part
as a result whereof the direction to appoint first respondent – Dalbir
Singh is set aside.
16. A disturbing feature of this case is that even after notice of the
writ petition when the State of Haryana became aware that Khub Ram
lacked essential qualification and his certificates were unreliable, it
took no action to undo the ill effects of fraud by taking any action
against Khub Ram. As a result Khub Ram continued in service for a
number of years and also earned promotions. This was at the cost of
claim of other genuine selected candidates whose cases could have
been considered if action had been taken at appropriate time. In such
a situation, although we have granted no relief to Mahavir Prasad by
ordering for his appointment, we direct the State of Haryana to
compensate Mahavir Prasad by paying him an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) within two months. A further
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) should also be deposited by
the State of Haryana with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre within
the same time. The State of Haryana would be at liberty to fix
responsibility as to who was at fault for not taking action in the
matter after the deceitful acts came to its knowledge through filing of
the writ petition in 1992, and if possible, to recover the aforesaid
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) from the concerned
persons, in accordance with law, if they are still in office.
12
Page 13
C.A.No.2734/2012 etc.
17. As discussed above, Civil Appeal No.2734 of 2012 is dismissed
and the other Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.15871 of 2012 is
allowed only to the extent indicated above. There shall be no further
order as to costs.
......………………...……………………………….J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
……………………………………………………….J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi. April 29, 2015
13