CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2447 of 2006 PETITIONER: Navdeep RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21409/2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this Appeal is to the legality of judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant who
had questioned her termination of services by the respondents
1 to 4 i.e. State of Punjab and its functionaries. The order of
termination was passed on the ground that she has tampered
with her mark sheet to get employment. Enquiry was
conducted and it was found that she had tampered with the
mark sheet.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
After passing the matriculation examination, appellant
joined R.R. Bawa, DAV College for Girls, Batala, Punjab under
the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, (in short the
‘University’) respondent No.5. In June, 1995 she passed the
B. Sc. (Economics), Part III examination securing 418 marks
out of 800 marks. On the basis of the mark list submitted,
she was admitted to the B.Ed. course under the University
and passed the B.Ed. examination also. She was selected as
JBT teacher in a Government aided School i.e. Ved kaur Arya
Girls High School, Quadian, Gurdaspur for teaching
mathematics. While working as a teacher she completed her
M.A. (Economics) examination by correspondence course from
Punjab University, Patiala. While she was working as JBT
teacher a news item was published indicating that 55 teachers
obtained fake degrees and their services were terminated.
Name of appellant was one of them. The orders of termination
were passed on the basis of the orders passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in a Public Interest Litigation.
Appellant came to know that the allegations so far as she is
concerned related to alleged tampering of marks in B.Sc. Part
III, that is she had actually secured 86 marks in Economics
and not 124, and in Computer Application she had secured
140 marks and not 102 as was shown in the mark sheet
produced by her. On verification of the records from the
University, it was clear that while her total marks remained
same, there was increase in the marks of Computer
Application while there was a decrease in marks of Economics.
A writ petition was filed challenging the termination of her
services. The High Court issued the notices to the
respondents and the University. An enquiry was conducted by
the University and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report
which clearly indicated that there was reduction of marks in
one subject and increase in the other. Stand of the appellant
was that she has not got any benefit out of the alleged
tampering and she was not responsible for the same. But her
claim was not accepted. Though the Enquiry Officer found
that she had not obtained any advantage out of it, yet the
Enquiry Report was to the effect that the obvious purpose for
tampering was to obtain a certain percentage of marks
required for being eligible for admission. After verifying the
documents in question, it was concluded that she had
tampered with the mark sheet. It was concluded that there
was only one purpose with which the tampering was done i.e.
to take advantage in various admissions and selections in a
government job as a teacher. The High Court accepted the
report and dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Enquiry Officer had himself came to hold that the appellant
has not taken any advantage. In any event she had higher
qualification than the minimum educational qualification
required for the post of a teacher and, therefore, even ignoring
the disputed marks, she was clearly eligible.
In response, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that one who seeks equity to be done must come
with clean hands. The various documents examined by the
Enquiry Officer clearly reveal that it was appellant herself who
was responsible for the tampering. Her so called ignorance
and claim of innocence is clearly untenable. When it was
noticed that she had been caught, a feeble plea was taken that
she did not verify the correctness of the marks with the official
records. In the records of the College from where the mark
sheet was taken, the correct marks were recorded. She had
signed in token of having verified the marks.
The Enquiry Officer’s report is based on evaluation of the
materials examined by him. There is no dispute raised by the
appellant that in fact she had secured 86 marks in Economics
and not 124, and similarly in Computer Application she had
secured 140 marks and not 102. The obvious purpose for the
change as has been rightly noticed by the Enquiry Officer, is to
project that she had secured certain percentage of marks
which made her eligible for admission into the higher courses.
In any event, the Enquiry Officer’s conclusions cannot be
termed as perverse to warrant any interference. That being so,
the action taken by the authorities cannot be faulted.
But at the same time it is not disputed by the
respondents that the appellant possess the minimum
educational qualification for admission even though the
tempted marks are out of consideration. Learned counsel for
the respondent-State is right in his submission that a person
who resorts to tampering of mark sheet should not be shown
any leniency. But considering the fact that she had rendered
about 10 years of service without almost any blemish and
appears to have otherwise a good academic record, on the
peculiar facts of the case, the Government would do well to
consider whether a fresh appointment can be given to her
ignoring the tampered marks. Considering the peculiar
circumstances, the matter may be considered in its proper
perspective taking into account the various factors. It is
entirely in the discretion of the Government, and there is no
mandate issued by us.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.