MAHI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahi Pal and Amar Pal Singh, petitioners, have filed this petition under Section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing F.I.R. No.15 dated 28-12-1992, registered under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, I. P. C., by the State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, and the consequent charge-sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code and pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.

(2.) The back-drop of the case runs like this. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 15-1-1986 made by the Haryana Public Service Commission, Mahi Pal had applied for one of the three temporary posts of Traffice Manager Class-II in the Transport Department, Haryana. Academic qualification under the "essential qualifications" prescribed for the post was Graduate of a recognised University withthree years' experience in Motor Road Transport and adequate knowledge of Hindi. Mahi Pal petitioner along with others was interviewed by the said Public Service Commission on 3-9-1986. Result was declared on 10-9-1986. The name of Mahi Pal petitioner was recommended by the said Commission to the State Government for appointment to the post of Traffic Manager, and he was also intimated accordingly by letter dated 12-9-1986.

(3.) However, the petitioner was not appointed as such and he filed Civil Writ Petition 692 of 1987 in this Court which was allowed by order dated September 6, 1988 with a direction to the State of Haryana to appoint the said petitioner as Traffic Manager-Class II. The appointment of Mahi Pal petitioner and two others was challenged by Six other persons in Civil Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5342 of 1986. Both these writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by order dated November 24, 1989 (Annexure R.1). However, while dismissing these civil writ petition, it was made clear that the observations made in the judgment would not prevent the State Government to rescind the appointment of the three persons including Mahi Pal petitioner, if after enquiry it is found that the certificates of experience submitted by them were not genuine.