SANDEEP RATHEE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Guest Science Master, besides seeking direction for his appointment in place of respondent No. 4. By making reference to the criteria formulated by the State Government for appointment to the post of Guest Teacher, it is pleaded that such appointment has to be strictly made on the basis of marks obtained in the prescribed qualification.

(2.) The petitioner and one Sunil Kumar appeared for appointment to the post of Guest Science Master on 12.11.2007. The petitioner has compared his marks in the qualifying exam with that of respondent No. 4. As per this, the petitioner had obtained 57.17% marks in B.Sc, 66.20% marks in B. Ed. making an average of 61.68%. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 had obtained 59% marks in B.Sc. and 60% marks in B. Ed. making an average of 59.5%. The petitioner would urge that selection has been made only on the basis of B.Sc. qualification, which would be against the criteria and, thus, has impugned the selection of respondent No. 4.

(3.) This claim of the petitioner is in serious dispute as can be seen from the averments made in the reply. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any original certificate and had rather produced a photo copy of the certificate bearing Sr. No. 4734, Roll No. 8003. In this certificate, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 829 marks in B.Sc. and 662 marks in B.Ed. Committee at that stage found that the marks obtained, as disclosed by the petitioner in B.Sc. Qualification, the serial number and Roll Number were different than shown by the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce the original certificate. Though the petitioner was denied appointment on this short ground but the actual fact would be apparent from the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. He would disclose the reason for which the petitioner did not show the original certificate. It is disclosed that the petitioner had manipulated the attested photo copy of the final Detailed Marks Certificate of B.Sc. The petitioner had produced a certificate showing grand total as 829 marks in B.Sc. Part I and Part II and 192 marks in Part III. This forgery could be detected as the petitioner had earlier applied for the post of Guest Science Master in the same very School, where he had produced the detailed marks certificate of the B. Sc examination with the same Roll Number and Serial number, giving out grand total marks as 697 out of which 506 marks were obtained in Part I and Part II examination and 191 marks in Part III examination. Copy of this detailed marks certificate is annexed with the reply filed by respondent No. 4 as Annexure R4/1. It is, thus, pleaded that the petitioner had produced a forged and fabricated mark sheet.