High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 02 PAT CK 0066

Md. Firoz Alam Son Of Ali Hasan Resident Of Village vs The Union of India

Patna High Court · Decided on 17 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Nilu Agrawal
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
1370 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

30 paragraphs · 300 words
1.

The order under appeal is dated 20th August, 2013

passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4160 of 2013. The writ application came to

be filed by the petitioner, who is the appellant here, when the Deputy

General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation cancelled the

candidature of the appellant vide order dated 28.01.2013, which was

challenged in the writ application.

2.

The appellant was one of the applicants against

advertisement dated 19.08.2011 for setting up of a retail petrol pump

outlet under Kishan Seva Kendra. Appellant was short listed and

placed at number one position, but when the actual verification of the

declarations made in the application was carried out in the field, two

facts was held out against him. One that the land, which was

shown and offered by the appellant, was not of the required size in

terms of the advertisement and that the certificate of graduation,

which was used by the appellant, which was a marks sheet

supposedly issued by the J.P. University, was found to be forged and

fabricated.

3.

On these two grounds, the candidature of the appellant

was cancelled. The learned single Judge heard the arguments of the

parties and did not find anything irrational with regard to the

cancellation of the candidature of the appellant. The effort on the

part of the appellant to shake off the onus of using a forged

document did not succeed because those documents are self-attested

documents and are part and parcel of the application which was filed

by the appellant and use of such documents was beneficial to the

appellant because marks were required to be awarded for higher

qualification.

4.

The order of the learned single Judge does not suffer

from any infirmity which is required to be rectified in appeal.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.