AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In 1978, Respondent No. 4 was appointed on the post of Lecturer. In 2009, Appellant complained to the University that the said appointment was obtained by Respondent No. 4 by forging mark sheets. University appointed a retired District Judge to ascertain truth and substance of the complaint. The District Judge submitted his report on 22nd February, 2010 and held that the complaint is of no substance. Challenging the report of the District Judge, Appellant approached this Court. By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been dismissed. In the report, the District Judge has reported that he compared the attested mark sheets of Respondent No. 4 as were furnished to the University at the time when Respondent No. 4 was appointed on the post of Lecturer with the mark sheets produced by Respondent No. 4 and found that there is no discrepancy in between them. The District Judge reported that the purported mark sheets produced by the Appellant were xerox copies, and that, trickery has been made while making those xerox copies.
In the circumstances, we were reluctant to admit the appeal. However, since it is being insisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Mamgain that the evidence that was produced by the Appellant before the District Judge was clinching in nature and the District Judge has not been able to understand the true purport of the evidence, thus, produced, we permit the Appellant to deposit a sum of ` 10,000/- (` ten thousand) with the Registrar General of this Court as security for costs of the appeal. In the event such costs is deposited within a month from today, let the appeal be listed for admission when an effort shall be made to deal with the appeal finally. In the event such costs is not deposited within the aforesaid time, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to a Bench.