ELANGBAM BABINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kh. Mani, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 427 of 2012 as well as Mr. Hemchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 280 of 2012 and Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 261 of 2014.

(2.) In WP(C) No. 427 of 2012 the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 to the posts of Sub- Inspectors of Police (Female) under the sports meritorious quota in the Manipur Police Department on the ground that they had produced forged and fabricated sports certificates on the basis of which they had secured appointments.

(3.) Mr. Kh. Mani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 427 of 2012 has submitted that the respondent No. 4 (Miss Aruna Laishram) has relied on a sport certificate at the time of applying and securing appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Female), which is annexed at Annexure-A/16, which shows the participation of the respondent No. 4 in the 20th Senior Male and Female Taekwondo Championships organised by Bengal Taekwondo Association held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkata. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned senior counsel submits that, though the respondent no. 4 claimed to have participated in the said championship, it has been subsequently learnt that the name of the respondent No. 4 (Aruna Laishram) was never sponsored by the All Manipur Taekwondo Association as evident from the letter of the All Manipur Taekwondo Association, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-A/17 of the writ petition. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned senior counsel submits that if the respondent no. 4 had really participated in the said championship, her name ought to have been sponsored by the All Manipur Taekwondo Association. However, since her name was not sponsored as evident from the said letter, she could never have participated in the said Championship which shows that the certificate relied on by the respondent No. 4 is a false certificate.