IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2009
Date of Decision: November 04, 2009
Mukesh Kumar & Another
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - S/shri R.K. Chopra, Senior
Advocate, with Amit Chopra, Kapil
Kakkar, Vivek Rattan, R.S.
Manhas, R.K. Arora, Mahesh Gupta,
P.S. Goraya, Tribhawan Singla,
M.L. Sachdeva, V.K. Shukla,
Jagbir Malik, Onkar Singh Batalvi
and Ms. Alka Chatrath,
Advocates, for the petitioner(s).
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This shall dispose of a bunch of
petitions, filed in challenge to similar orders,
viz. CWP Nos.16606 of 2009, `Mukesh Kumar &
Another vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16605 of
2009, `Kewal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16590 of 2009, `Narinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab
& Others'; 16748 of 2009, `Gurjit Kaur vs. State
of Punjab & Others'; 16749 of 2009, `Paramjit
Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16750 of
CWP No.16606 of 2009 [2]
2009, `Navtej Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Others'; 16751 of 2009, `Jagroop Singh vs. State
of Punjab & Others'; 16752 of 2009, `Sarabjit
Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16753 of 2009, `Harpreet Kaur vs. State of Punjab
& Others'; 16754 of 2009, `Gurpreet Kaur vs.
State of Punjab & Others'; 16755 of 2009,
`Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16756 of 2009, `Anu Sharma vs. State of Punjab &
Others'; 16757 of 2009, `Balbir Kaur vs. State of
Punjab & Others'; 16760 of 2009, `Jatinder Kumar
vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16765 of 2009,
`Rajni vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16766 of
2009, `Sukhpal Kaur vs. State of Punjab &
Others'; 16767 of 2009, `Gurbinder Kaur vs. State
of Punjab & Others'; 16776 of 2009, `Pooja Rani
vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16789 of 2009,
`Hardeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16793 of 2009, `Gurbhej Singh & Another vs. State
of Punjab & Others'; 16794 of 2009, `Raj Kumar
vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16796 of 2009,
`Jatinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16800 of 2009, `Ranjit Kaur & Others vs. State of
Punjab & Others'; 16801 of 2009, `Amandeep Kaur
vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16802 of 2009,
`Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16804 of 2009, `Shashi Kumar & Others vs. State
CWP No.16606 of 2009 [3]
of Punjab & Others'; 16807 of 2009, `Poonam Bala
Gupta vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16812 of
2009, `Baljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others';
16813 of 2009, `Renu Bala vs. State of Punjab &
Others'; 16840 of 2009, `Archana Rani vs. State
of Punjab & Others'; 16842 of 2009, `Jaswant Kaur
& Another vs. State of Punjab & Others'; 16844 of
2009, `Khushvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Others'; 16849 of 2009, `Rupinder Kaur Gill vs.
State of Punjab & Others'; 16854 of 2009,
`Mahinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others'; and
16616 of 2009, `Ramandeep Kaur Cheema vs. State
of Punjab & Others'.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
agree that similar issue was raised in Civil Writ
Petition No.16683 of 2009, `Rashpinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab &
Others', decided on 3.11.2009.
I have considered the contention of
learned counsel. I find that the similar orders
as challenged in the case of Rashpinder Kaur (supra)
have been challenged in this petition.
In the case of Rashpinder Kaur (supra),
the following order had been passed:-
"Facts
in brief are that by virtue of an advertisement
issued by the State of Punjab, Department of Education,
9998 posts of Teaching Fellows were advertised. In about
400 cases, the respondents prima faice found that the
experience certificate(s)/documents appended with the
Application Forms was/were bogus (forged and
fabricated). So as to give an opportunity to such persons,
CWP No.16606 of 2009 [4]
an advertisement was given by the respondents to enable
all such persons to appear before a Committee to establish
that the certificate(s) infact was/were genuine.
In all the cases that have flooded the Court, the
respondents have passed orders cancelling the agreement
of appointment, thereby removing the persons from
service with immediate effect. While passing the orders,
reference has been made only to the certificate(s) that
purportedly was/were found to be forged/ fabricated.
The writ petitions have been filed in challenge to the
orders of removal on various grounds including that the
petitioners have been allowed to serve for about a year
whereafter the impugned action has been taken; the
certificate(s) that had been termed as bogus (forged and
fabricated) was/ were infact genuine as is evident from the
documents appended with the writ petitions.
It has been specifically pleaded that the documents
placed on record with the writ petitions in support of
genuineness of the certificate(s), were produced before the
Committee. No notice of the documents has however been
taken by the administrative authorities; every individual is
vested with a right on issuance of a letter of appointment;
the orders passed by the respondents are cyclostyled
orders and do not deal with the individual case of the
petitioners, as projected by them; reasoned and speaking
orders have not been passed; and proper opportunity of
hearing has not been given.
In the petitions earlier filed on the grounds given
above, the matters had been adjourned to 10.11.2009 after
issuance of notice of motion.
The matters that are being taken up today, have been
shown in urgent list and are being disposed of in view of
the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent-
State.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
contends that the respondents, considering the facts and
circumstances of the cases, have taken a decision to
review/ reconsider the cases of all the persons who want to
bring evidence/ material to show that the documents/
certificates submitted by the petitioners were genuine. In
pursuance of this exercise, an advertisement has already
been given in `The Tribune‟ and „Punjab Kesri‟ on
30.10.2009 and Punjabi daily `Ajit‟ dated 31.10.2009. The
public notice makes it evident that all the persons who
have been removed from service on the ground of relying
on bogus (forged and fabricated) certificates, belonging to
the areas (except District Gurdaspur) are required to
appear in the Office of Bharat Scouts Guide, Near Law
Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh at 10.00 A.M.
The persons from District Gurdaspur are required to
appear on 5.11.2009.
Learned counsel has further informed the Court that
CWP No.16606 of 2009 [5]
a Committee has been constituted which shall accept the
representations/ documents to be submitted in support of
claim of each person. While accepting the documents, a
receipt duly signed by authorised signatory would be
given for each of the documents. On considering claim of
each person, after verification of the documents so
submitted, a reasoned and speaking order would be
passed.
Learned counsel further states that on account of
paucity of time, another public notice would be given by
way of a corrigendum or otherwise, asking the removed
persons to come present and project their case as detailed
above.
Learned counsel has assured the Court that speaking
and reasoned orders would be passed in regard to each of
the individual cases and the same shall be conveyed to the
concerned persons.
In view of the stand taken on behalf of the
respondent-State, it transpires that the impugned orders are
required to be reviewed/ reconsidered by the respondents.
Under the circumstances, cause of action does not survive
in so much as fresh decision vide reasoned and speaking
orders, would be taken by the respondents after
considering the individual claim of the petitioners/
candidates.
In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of
with direction to the respondents to complete the process
as soon as possible, in the interest of administrative
efficiency.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
some such persons have not been relieved and continue to
serve.
If that be so, it is directed that the persons not
relieved till date as a consequence of the orders of
removal, would be allowed to continue to serve till orders
are passed by the respondents on review/ reconsideration
of the claims.”
On consideration of facts collectively, it transpires that persons from areas other than District Gurdaspur, would be
given an opportunity of presenting their case on
4th November, 2009 at 10.00 AM in the Office of
Bharat Scouts Guide, near Law Department, Panjab
University, Chandigarh, while the persons from
CWP No.16606 of 2009 [6]
District Gurdaspur can approach the Committee on
5th November, 2009. Another corrigendum/ public
notice would also be given to enable any left out
candidate whose documents have been found
suspicious. The respondents as per their
undertaking would pass speaking and reasoned
orders after consideration of the documents
submitted by the candidates.
In view of the above, all these
cases are disposed of in the same terms as Civil
Writ Petition No.16683 of 2009, `Rashpinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab
& Others’, decided on 3.11.2009, portion whereof
has been reproduced above.
Copy of the order be placed on each
file of the connected cases taken up today.
Copy of the order be given under
signatures of the Reader of this Bench.
(AJAI LAMBA)
November 04, 2009 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?