BIJAY KUMAR MALLICK Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order contained in Annexure 1 be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The further prayer of the petitioner is that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said order. Annexure 1 is an order passed by the Under-Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, on the 11th May, 1970, stating, in effect, that the Commission had decided to debar the petitioner from all their examinations and selections for a period of five years with effect from May, 1970, The petitioner's candidature for the Indian Administrative Service etc examination of 1968 and 1969 was also cancelled. This order was passed in pursuance of Rule 15 of the Rules for competitive examination of the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated the 4th March, 1967. Rule 15 is quoted below:--

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated thus: The petitioner had passed his Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1961 and his date of birth recorded in the certificate of this examination is 21st December, 1949. According to the petitioner, his date of birth was 21st July, 1947, and he had detected the wrong entry, mentioned above, "after doing his M.A. in the year 1966". It appears that the petitioner had sat for Indian Administrative Service Examination in October, 1967, but he failed to qualify. The petitioner had, thereafter, but for the same examination in 1968 also, but he was unsuccessful again. It is stated in the writ application that candidates not qualifying at the written test are sent their mark-sheets forthwith and not having received his mark-sheet, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, in April, 1969, as to why his mark-sheet had not been sent to him. In reply, the Commission wrote to the petitioner that his case was under consideration. For the next examination to be held in October, 1969, the petitioner had been given a provisional admit card and he appeared in that examination again in 1969. The result was published in February, 1970 and the petitioner's name appeared in the provisional list of successful candidates. The petitioner was waiting to be called for his interview for the personality test, but when he was not called he sent two telegrams to the Commission enquiring about the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner got a letter dated the 8th April, 1970, from the Union Public Service Commission, a copy of which has been given as Annexure 9. In this letter, the petitioner was informed that the original Higher Secondary Examination certificate, dated the 30th March, 1962, that he had supplied, contained an alteration with respect to his date of birth. It is mentioned in Annexure 9 that the petitioner's date of birth was 21st December, 1949 and was not what now appeared on the certificate, namely "21st September, 1947." The original certificate (mentioned this date in Hindi). Many other details were mentioned in this Annexure, including the fact that the petitioner's correct date of birth, as recorded in the Admission Register of Harawatganj Higher Secondary School, Gangatganj, from which he had migrated, was 21st December 1949. It was alleged in this Annexure that the petitioner had furnished false particulars with regard to his date of birth in his application for admission to the Indian Administrative Service etc. Examination and he had submitted a false document showing a date of birth which the authorities were unable to accept. The petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Rule 15 of the Rules, quoted above. The petitioner had submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him, but Annexure 1 followed, by which the petitioner was held to have tampered with the date of birth mentioned in the certificate of passing the Higher Secondary Examination. Thus, the petitioner has come to this Court, contending that the order incorporated in Annexure 1 ought to be quashed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that if the certificate given on the 30th March, 1962 did not indicate, on the face of it, that it had been tampered with, other relevant contentions will appear in the case, but, if by merely a look at this document any reasonable person can conclude that the document has been tampered with at the place where the date of birth has been mentioned, then no other question will arise. In such circumstances, we called upon Sri Tarakant Jha, Standing Counsel No. 2, to produce the certificate which we learnt was in his possession, and we have looked into the document and Sri J.C. Sinha has also looked into it thoroughly. Even a cursory look at the certificate makes it clear that the month and the year with respect to the date of birth have been tampered with. No doubt, the month reads now as "Sember", but it is clear that something has been erased in between the date 21st and the word "Sember". Then, in the year, it is clear that the last figure, which now reads as seven in Hindi, is something which has been superimposed after erasing what was there before. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the month, which reads now as "Sember", is that it must have been "December", as the expression "Sember" is meaningless and, according to the petitioner, he was born in the month of July. Therefore, even if it is possible for this Court to superimpose its opinion as to whether the writ petitioner had submitted a fabricated document or not, when the Public Service Commission is of the view that he bad, the conclusion must be that the petitioner had submitted a document which had been tampered with in relevant particulars. Therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the order contained in Annexure 1 and, as a matter of fact, in view of the visual inspection of the certificate, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any other argument. The result is that this writ application must fail and it is dismissed. This is also a fit case in which the writ application must be dismissed with costs and to indicate that the writ application has failed, we impose a token cost against the petitioner amounting to Rs. 10/-.