VIJAY PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. The petitioner was ap- pointed as a recruit constable in the C.R.P.F. Commandant 123 Battalion. His services were terminated on the basis of the following charges :-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the petitioner was recruited he had not misrepresented that the Prathma certificate was equivalent to matriculation. He had only given his Prathma certificate. It was further contended that petitioner never committed any act of misconduct while functioning as a Constable in 128 Battalion. On the other hand, he has received certificate for meritorious service from 128 Battalion. It was also contended that he never got recruited as alleged. It was respondent who has understood that Prathma certificate equivalent to matriculation. Our attention has been drawn at page 199 of paper-book. It is a letter dated 23.4.1994 issued by the commandant 123 battalion, the same is reproduced as under :-

(3.) Mr.Aggarwal has, in support of his contention, has cited Tara Chand v. Union of India & Ore., 2002 (65) DRJ 102. On the other hand, Mr.Jayant Bhushan, counsel for the respondents has contended that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio as he could not have been appointed to the said post as the qualification in terms of CRPF Rules were matriculation for such post. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ore., (1996) 2 SCO 45. it was also contended by counsel for the respondent that even if a mistake was committed by the respondent in taking Prathma as equivalent to matriculation, respondent could have rectified the same mistake.