GOVIND CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner is the appellant who has preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07th August 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1425/2011.

(2.) SERVICE of the writ petitioner / appellant is said to have been terminated by the respondents by order dated 9th May 2011 which was under challenge in the writ petition. The appellant is said to have joined on the post of Home Guard in Giridih district on 15th February 1984 on the basis of the certificate issued from Primary School, Kurhu Bindo, Giridh. Pursuant to the advertisement for appointment of constable / driver published in the year 2004, the petitioner applied for and was selected vide Annexure -2 dated 21st April 2010. Annexure -2 appears to be a provisional selection order whereunder the appellant was asked to appear with necessary educational / caste / character / residential / home guard certificates in original along with two passport size colour photographs and for re - measurement at Police Centre, Hazaribagh, so that after due verification, necessary action could be taken for his appointment. The instant Memo categorically states that it should not be treated as an appointment letter. However, it is alleged by the appellant that he was terminated from service on the allegation that he had filed a false certificate of Class -VII. It is stated that he came to know through the newspaper publication. The appellant also came to know that an FIR being Town PS Case No. 454/10 was registered against him under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that information were sought for under the RTI in relation to the admission register of the year 1980 of the said school as also results of Class -VII of the year 1982 from the Middle School, Kurhu Bindo where he had cleared Class -VII exam. The information furnished by the DSE, Giridih on 5th May 2012 reveals that the petitioner had cleared the Class -VII exam. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in holding that the petitioner had not cleared Class -VII exam and had obtained service by virtue of forged and fabricated documents. The appellant on earlier occasion, was asked to produce the original covering letter furnished under the Right to Information Act which has been subsequently filed by way of supplementary affidavit.