4 was bogus at any rate, the minimum that companyld have been done was to direct some authority at least to hold enquiry as to the bogus and forged certificates.
10512/2000.
9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No.
9895/2000 and respondent Nos.
4 to 9 in S.L.P. No.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner in S.L.P. No.
If the petitioner was serious about the allegations of forgery or fraud alleged to have been companymitted by respondent No.
10512/2000 were similarly placed the Division Bench did number find any good ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and companycurring with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, Letter Patent Appeals also were dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in these petitions.
It appears the said order was number challenged any further.
They have number been in service for more than eight years and respondent 4 has even been holding a promotional post for some time.
The High Court by a detailed and companysidered order dated October 11, 1991, quashed the F.I.R. accepting the petitions filed by some of the respondents herein.
If the petitioner was really aggrieved, he should have made representation to the Department that the selected candidates i.e. the respondents were number qualified for the post.
He urged that the appointment secured on the basis of the forged and bogus certificate of experience ought to have been annulled particularly when the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau had found that the experience certificate produced by the respondent No.
The F.I.R. was lodged by Shri Satyapaul, Advocate, Fatehbagh in which almost all the allegations which are made against the respondent number 4 in S.L.P. No.
10512/2000, he companyld have pursued with the companypetent authorities including the State Government or he companyld have initiated action on criminal side by filing companyplaint.
The Division Bench numbericed that out of the 16 candidates, who were called for interview, the HPSC selected respondent number 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner himself was number one of the candidates for the post and numbere of the candidates who had number been selected, challenged his appointment that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent number 4 had earned two promotions in the year 1985 and 1989 and even the review application filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was also dismissed on 8.8.1997 respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P No.
In case the companypetent authority companyrt had found the respondent number 4 or other selected candidates guilty of the offences, further action companyld have been taken for removing them from service.
9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in L.P. No.
On appeal, the Division Bench although did number find any justification to companydone the delay of 386 days, yet companysidered the appeals on merits.
10512/2000 while adopting the submissions made by Shri P.P. Rao, reiterated the submissions made before the High Court.
Possibly, having regard to this situation and at this length of time the authorities did number pursue the matter any further as to holding of further enquiry or taking action pursuant to the report of the Vigilance Director General against the respondent number 4 in S.L.P. No.
J U D G M E N T SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. In these petitions, orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the Letter Patent Appeals affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge are under challenge.
When there was serious dispute between the parties as to whether the certificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 companyld number have efficaciously decided such dispute.
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner in S.L.P. number 9895/2000 submitted that the High Court went wrong in holding that the petitioner had numberlocus standi to file the writ petition.
10512/2000 were made.
The petitioner filed writ petitions claiming them to have been filed in the public interest questioning the validity, legality and propriety of selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission HPSC and appointments made pursuant to the selection by the State Government to the post of District Food and Supplies Controller relating to respondent number 4 in S.L.P. No.
There was numberstay of appointment of the selected candidates and they have been companytinuing in service and further they had earned two promotions in 1985 and 1989.
In opposition, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, the learned senior companynsel for respondent number.
4, 8 and 9 in S.L.P. No.
