JUDGMENT
G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. The present writ applications have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated March 23, 1990 (Annexure-2) by which the respondent Director-General or Police has terminated the appointment of all constables appointed on the basis of selection made between the period October 17, 1989 to October 19, 1989 in the District of Jehanabad.
2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute
may first be stated in short. Pursuant to an advertisement made for appointment of constables in
the District of Jehanabad, several persons including the petitioners appeared before a Selection Committee between the period October 17,
1989 to October 19, 1989 and after various tests
and verifications, on the basis of a panel pre
pared by the said Committee, 105 persons were
declared to be fit for appointment. A copy of the
selection list has been filed as Annexure-1 to the
writ application. Out of the said 105 persons, 87
joined the posts pursuant to appointment letters
received by them. The remaining 18 persons
were not served with the appointment letters
and, therefore, there was no occasion for them
to join. Thereafter, the impugned letter was is
sued terminating the services of the said 87 per
sons. The reason for issuance of the impugned
order of termination, as it appears from this order
itself, is that pursuant to certain complaints an
enquiry was got conducted by the Zonal Inspector-General of Police, Patna Zone. On an analysts of the said enquiry report the following
irregularies transpired:
(i) There was gross violation of the mode and manner of appointment of constables provided in Police Order No. 202/88;
(ii) Difference was found in physical verification as shown in the candidate register and the master chart;
(iii) The appointments were not made in accordance with the reservation quota fixed for Homeguards, Schedule Tribes and Scheduled Castes;
(iv) On retest several new recruits failed;
(v) Better candidates were not appointed; and
(vi) Interpolations were made in the master chart.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents a photostat copy of the master chart has been filed as Annexure ‘A’. Reference to the said master chart evidences interpolations in various columns pertaining to various candidates having direct bearing on the merit of selection. For the reasons following hereinafter, I need not detain myself in setting out the details of those interpolations and the persons responsible for the same but then it has to be accepted that interpolations have been done and somebody is responsible for it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have primarily assailed the impugned order of termination on the ground of non-observance of the principles of natural justice in as much as, according to them, since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the candidates before passing of the impugned order, therefore, on this ground alone it should be declared as void ab initio and unenforceable.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, by referring to various documents, charts and figures, has tried to impress upon me that the entire process of alleged selection was tainted with mala fides, manipulations and nepotism and as such the Government as an employer was competent to undo the entire selection. According to him, in such cases the question of complying with the principles of natural justice cannot arise. He emphatically stated that the illegality has primarily occurred because of the malafides exercised by some of the members of the Selection Committee itself and therefore, since the selection itself stands vitiated in law, granting of individual hearing to the candidates would have been of no avail. It has also been brought to my notice that disciplinary proceedings against some of the members of the Selection Committee has already been initialed and further the matter is also being enquired into by the Vigilance Department of the Government wherein the enquiry is in progress. It has also been brought on record by the learned Advocate General by referring to a communication made to him by the office of the Director General of Police from which it transpires that, to be fair to the candidates appearing at the selection test, a retest was held to find out as to which of the candidates were genuinely fit for appointment. As a result of the retest, out of 87 persons who had been served with the appointment letters 15 absented inspite of notice to this effect and out of 72 who appeared for retest 10 failed. Thus admittedly even on retest 62 have been found to be fit for appointment as constables.
6. In the case of U.P. Junior Doctor’s Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 909, it has been held that where certain benefits arc derived pursuant to forgeries, the rules of natural justice are not attracted and the candidates concerned cannot claim for being provided with any opportunity of hearing in such matters.
7. In Lazarus Estates v. Beasly, (1956) I QB
702 at 712-713, per Denning LJ.,
“No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything .. .. .. .. .. .. it is nullity and void.”
8. In the above view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned order (Anncxure-2) cannot be held to be bad on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, but then keeping in view the entire facts circumstances atleast 62 candidates whose names have been placed on records and who having succeeded even in the retest cannot be allowed to be penalised for the misdeeds of the officers comprising the Selection Committee. Atleast they are entitled to the appointments in question. Accordingly, I hereby direct that the 62 candidates who have succeeded in the retest should be immediately allowed to join their posts. The writ applications are allowed to this extent only.
There will be no order as to costs.