DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS MADRAS Vs. D SATHIANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAINAR Sundaram, J. The Respondent's Secondary Grade Training School leaving Certificate No. 5168 March 1956 was held to be a bogus one and it was cancelled by the first appellant. This happened initially on 12. 4. 1969. The respondent came to this Court in W. P. 3819 of 1969, impugning the said order and palaniswamy J. by order dt. 18. 3. 1971, allowed the writ petition and directed the first appellant to hold an enquiry, after issuing notice to the respondent to find out whether the said certificate held by the respondent is a genuine one or not. The salient features taken note of by the learned Judge may be summed up as follows: - (i) The Tabulation Marks Register could not be the final word on the subject and the marks entered in the said register might have been entered by mistake. (ii) The respondent's results have been gazetted as of success. (iii) The first appellant has to establish the correctness or otherwise of the marks entered in the tabulation marks register with reference to other documents. (iv) The certificate held by the respondent having been issued by the competent authority must be presumed to be correct and authentic and until that presumption is rebutted by clinching evidence, it can hold good. (v) The tabulation marks register cannot be said to speak for itself, beyond any doubt, and there cannot be any assumption that it was final and irrebuttable. Despite the order passed by Palaniswamy, J. no enquiry was held by the appellants and they merely called upon the respondent, if he so desired, to peruse the Tabulation Marks register. There was no endeavour on the part of the appellants to appreciate the implications of the features taken note of by the learned Judge and rectify the misconceptions and infirmities. The first appellant thereafter passed the order on 17. 8. 1977, stating'it is proved beyond doubt that the Secondary Grade Certificate T. S. L. C. No. 5168 march, 1956, possessed by the petitioner (respondent herein) is a bogus one'. The respondent, aggrieved by the above order, came to this court once again by way of W. P. No. 3392 of 1977. Padmanabhan, J. who heard the writ petition, found that no attempt was made by the appellants to substantiate the case against the respondent rectifying the lacunae noted in the order in the earlier writ petition and further the learned Government Pleader, who appeared before Padmanabhan. J. admitted that the only available evidence against the respondent is the tabulation Marks register and no other material is available with the authorities. Under the said circumstances, Padmanabhan, J. was obliged to allow the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of padmanabhan, J.

(2.) BEFORE us, Mr. P. Samuel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants, would submit that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the tabulation marks Register is correct and authentic and the respondent was given the opportunity to peruse the tabulation Marks Register and after that process, no further enquiry was warranted and hence acting upon the presumption the first appellant was correct in passing the order, impugned in the writ petition. This line of thinking, we are not able to subscribe our support to, because no pronouncement has gone to the extent of contenancing a universal proposition that in the case of allegations of fabrication of a document, the contents of which are called out from a record, maintained in a public office, there is an irrebuttable presumption that the parent | record does not suffer any infirmity. Each case I will depend upon its facts. Dealing with a more or [less similar case, a bench of this Court in D. Vincent v. Director of Government Examination, Madras-34,1987 W. L. R. 69 observed that it would be wholly improper to hold a person guilty of charge of tampering with his marks list, except on sufficient and reliable material to prove that the marks actually obtained were different from those shown in the marks list. In that case, there was an allegation of fabrication of the mark list. The Bench also opined that the entering of marks in the Tabulation Marks Register can never be treated as conclusive on the facts of that case, and an error in recording the marks cannot also be ruled out, because in that case also the person's name came to be gazetted in the list of successful candidates and it was not disclosed that there was any other basis on which the list sent to be published was made out. Here, we find the tabulation marks register reflecting a particular position. At the same time, there is the certificate issued by the competent authority, possessed by the respondent and reflecting another position, it is not claimed that the said certificate suffers the vice of corrections or alterations or erasures; and it is not signed and issued by the competent authority. Furthermore, the name of the respondent was also gazetted in the list of successful candidates. In the absence of proper and clinching evidence, pointing out that the certificate issued by the competent authority and possessed by the respondent, must stand eschewed as a fabricated one, it is not possible to go by any universal presumption that the Tabulation marks register alone is reflecting the correct position and that presumption is irrebuttable. As already noted, in spite of opportunity given to the appellants to hold an enquiry and substantiate the case against the respondent, they did not do so and before Padmanabhan, J. a categoric statement was made by the learned Government Pleader that there is no other evidence available with the appellants on the question. Rightly the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. Under these circumstances, this writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.