Krishnajee vs State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—The present petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that initially the petitioner was selected on the post of a Constable, but it appears that certain gross irregularities were found out in the selection process and, therefore, there was termination of selection and appointment of candidates mainly on the ground of fraud and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred, as the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:

(i) The present petitioner, as per the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, was never selected on the post of Constable. Learned Counsel appearing for the, respondents has produced the original copy of the roll of recruitment before this Court. The same is also shown to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(ii) Prima facie it appears that there is a tampering with the names, referred in the respective column of the roll of recruitment.

(iii) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was never selected and there is gross tampering of the documents and a fraud has been committed and fraudulently his name has been inserted as a selected candidate. Original copy of the aforesaid register has been presented before this Court.

(iv) Looking to the documents, referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents and the aforesaid register, prima facie it appears that there is tampering of the original document, which reveals the name of the petitioner as a selected candidate. Fraud vitiates the whole proceeding. Once there is a fraud in selection process, the selection goes away. There is a word against word.

(v) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority has committed this fraud as they are the custodian of the aforesaid register.

(vi) Even if this contention is accepted, it remains a fact that there is fraud. Who did this fraud is a matter of inquiry, but a fact remains that though petitioner was never selected by affixing slips on original name, two names are now reflected.

So far as the present petitioner is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is No selection of the present petitioner but instead of the original name of selected candidates, some slips have been affixed and in place of one person, the names of two persons have been shown to be affixed. The slip bears the names of two persons and there is also change of roll number. Now Serial No. 430 and 430-A has been given.

Looking to this document, it appears that in excise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case of the petitioner cannot be decided without laying evidence. The evidence must be laid by the petitioner and they must be cogent and convincing one for grant of relief, as prayed for in the memo of present petition and, therefore, I hereby dismiss this writ petition on the ground of disputed question of facts, involved in the present writ petition and the fraud, as alleged by the petitioner, in the original register and similarly the respondents are also alleging fraud, which has been committed either by the petitioner or at the behest of the petitioner, so that the petitioner can get undue benefit of the same. In these set of circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is not remediless. Ubi jus, ibi remedum. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. In these set of facts, especially where evidence is required to be laid to dispel the clouds of fraud, I am not exercising powers conferred upon this Court under extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

This writ petition is disposed of only on the ground that this involves disputed question of facts and; therefore, the relief, as prayed for by the, petitioner, cannot be granted in this writ petition.