IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP 3337 of 1985
DATE OF DECISION : JULY 24, 2008
RAJINDER SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR ETC.
...... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Nemo.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
Rajinder Singh, petitioner, has filed this petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ or direction for
quashing order dated 13.3.1985 (Annexure P-2) whereunder the diploma
certificate of the petitioner for Stock Assistant Course has been
withdrawn/cancelled.
As per the pleadings, the petitioner possessed the certificate of
Matriculation standard examination from All India Vidwat Sammelan,
Aligarh (for short ‘AIVS’), which made him an eligible candidate for
CWP 3337 of 1985 2
seeking admission to the Stock Assistant Course. In the year 1978-79,
the petitioner, accordingly, applied for admission to the said course and
was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The certificate, as
possessed by the petitioner, was submitted. No objection was raised by
the members of the Committee at the time of the interview and the validity
of the certificate was not disputed. After completion of formalities for
seeking admission, the petitioner completed the course and was asked to
fill up his annual examination form. At that point of time also, the
original certificate was checked and verified by the University authorities.
The petitioner, accordingly, was issued the roll number and was allowed
to take the examination for the said course. He was declared pass. On the
basis of the certificate issued by the respondent-University, the petitioner
applied for a Government job and was appointed to the post of Stock
Assistant.
In January, 1985 i.e. after about 6/7 years, the petitioner was
served with a show cause notice by the University intimating that the
admission had been sought on the basis of the certificate projecting it to
be a matriculation certificate which, however, was not issued by a
recognized University or Board. Under these circumstances, the show
cause notice was issued as to why the diploma certificate issued by the
University, on the basis of the certificate issued by AIVS, be not cancelled
and forfeited.
A reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the
petitioner, which was to the effect that the certificate was presented at
various stages of admission. No objection was ever raised. The petitioner
CWP 3337 of 1985 3
had successfully passed the course undertaken at Hisar and, therefore,
there was no legal reason to cancel the diploma certificate and marks-
sheet issued to the petitioner.
In view of these facts, an apprehension has been shown in the
petition that the services of the petitioner would be terminated.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents
No.1 and 2 through Registrar, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, to
the effect that the required qualification for seeking admission to the
course of Stock Assistant was Matriculation, however, a certificate from
the recognized institution could only be accepted. Under these
circumstances, it was the duty of the petitioner to disclose that the
institution from where he had obtained the matriculation certificate was
not a recognized one.
The case of respondents No.1 and 2 further is that inquiries
were made from Jabalpur University and the University had informed that
AIVS had only been recognized for its intermediate examination. Even
that recognition was, subsequently, withdrawn by the Jabalpur University
and, in the result, the Matriculation certificate from AIVS clearly had been
issued by an institution that was not a recognized one. It has, therefore,
been pleaded that because the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted to
the Course, therefore, the University was well within its right to cancel or
withdraw the said certificate. The certificate could not be checked at an
earlier stage because there was a huge rush of applicants, who had
submitted applications for admission to the course of Stock Assistant.
The inquiries could be made only at a later stage and, on disclosure of true
CWP 3337 of 1985 4
facts, the impugned action was proposed.
Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana (respondent No.3) has
also filed a written statement giving out that the petitioner was appointed
as a Stock Assistant on adhoc basis on 12.9.1979 and continued as such
till the filing of the written statement. The petitioner was appointed on the
basis of the diploma certificate. The Haryana Agricultural University vide
communication dated 13.3.1985 had informed respondent No.3 that the
Matriculation certificate on the basis of which diploma course had been
undertaken by the petitioner, was not found to have been issued by a
recognized University/Board established by any State Government. In
this situation, the diploma certificate had been cancelled.
I have gone through the pleadings and have considered the
issues involved.
There was an order to maintain status quo regarding service
till further orders, which is continuing till date. In the result, it seems that
the petitioner has continued to be in service.
The facts show that the petitioner took admission to the
course of Stock Assistant in the year 1978-79. The respondents have not
disputed the fact that the certificate available with the petitioner was
presented and at that point in time, was accepted. It has further not been
disputed that the petitioner completed the course and was declared pass
and, on the strength of the certificate issued by the respondent-University,
was given employment. It has further not been disputed that from 1978-
79 till January, 1985, no action was taken by the University. The only
explanation for delay is that at the time of admission, there was a rush of
CWP 3337 of 1985 5
applicants seeking admission and, therefore, the necessary inquiries could
not be made.
The explanation of the respondent-University for the delay of
6 years, surely, cannot be accepted. The University is expected to make
inquiries within a reasonable period, i.e., during the currency of the course
undertaken by a student. The University has not placed on record any
document to indicate the conditions to which the students were subjected
to. It has not been denied that the certificate held by the petitioner had
been presented at the time of entry in the University to undertake the
course. It is not the case of the University that the certificate itself was a
forged document. The clock, in the facts and circumstances given
hereinabove, cannot be reversed, particularly when it is the admitted case
that the petitioner had passed the course of Stock Assistant successfully,
after completion of the course.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order dated
13.3.1985 (Annexure P-2) is, accordingly, quashed.
No order as to costs.
July 24, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE