MAHENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was one of the candidates for the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator, has filed the present petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondents No. 4 to 6, being not eligible. Further prayer has been made for considering the candidature of the petitioner, who was at Sr. No. 2 in the waiting list.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short, 'the Commission'), vide advertisement No. 9/2007 dated 22.7.2007, advertised 63 posts of Family Welfare Extension Educator. The educational qualifications required were Graduate from a recognised University; two years experience relating to Community Education in Health and Family Welfare and knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard. The last date fixed for submission of applications was 21.8.2007. The petitioner applied for the post well within time. His performance in interview was also upto the mark, but still finding his name not in the select list but in waiting list, the petitioner was surprised. The candidate at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list was already working as Multipurpose Health Worker, hence, not willing to join on the post. As there were some other candidates also, who may have not joined, the petitioner initially waited for the appointment, however, did not receive any communication. Thereafter, he came to know that certain candidates, who were not eligible, as lacking in requisite qualification in the form of experience, had been offered appointment. He referred to a communication dated 9.6.2008 from Civil Surgeon, Rohtak to Director General, Health Services Haryana, Panchkula, wherein it was mentioned that experience certificate produced by respondent No. 4 -Ajit Singh son of Umed Singh from Haryana Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti') was a bogus document, as neither the Secretary of the aforesaid Samiti had signed the same nor Ajit Singh ever worked there. Despite this fact, he was issued appointment letter on 31.7.2008. Thereafter, Ajit Singh produced another certificate of experience dated 10.7.2007 from Mansarovar Hospital, Rohtak, where he worked as OT Assistant and Ward Staff and OPD Helper on a salary of Rs. 2,200/ - per month. On verification, the certificate was found to be valid. He submitted that once the certificate produced by Ajit Singh along with the application was found to be forged, the appointment of respondent No. 4, being ineligible, deserves to be set aside.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted that appointments were offered to the candidates after verification of the certificates produced by them. The original application submitted by respondent No. 4 was produced in court, in which only one experience certificate was annexed by him, which was found to be fake. Second experience certificate, which is claimed to have been verified and found to be genuine, was not annexed with the application. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that on verification, the certificate produced by respondent No. 4 along with the application was found to be fake, however, the second experience certificate was found to be genuine. Regarding verification of the genuineness of the experience certificates produced by respondents No. 5 and 6, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the report submitted by Civil Surgeon, Sonepat vide communication dated 19.6.2008.