2002 (9) TMI 797 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the certificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 could not have efficaciously decided such dispute? Held that - Appeal dismissed. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned orders. The High Court by a detailed and considered order dated October 11, 1991, quashed the F.I.R. accepting the petitions filed by some of the respondents herein. It appears the said order was not challenged any further. Possibly, having regard to this situation and at this length of time the authorities did not 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 no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000. A submission was also made on behalf of some respondents particularly respondents 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 that even no prima facie case was made out against them in the enquiry.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dismissing Letter Patent Appeals affirming Single Judge's order on selection and appointment validity by HPSC for the post of District Food and Supplies Controller. Locus standi of petitioner, delay condonation, appointments made in 1981, promotions in 1985 and 1989, allegations of forged certificates, need for enquiry, lack of stay order, petitioner not directly affected, challenge to recruitment after 21 years, past legal precedents, failure to pursue criminal action, High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, lack of justification for interference, dismissal of Special Leave Petitions.

Locus Standi and Delay Condonation:
The petitioner challenged the selection and appointments made by HPSC for the post of District Food and Supplies Controller. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions citing lack of locus standi as the petitioner was not a contestant for the post and delay of 386 days. The Division Bench considered the appeals on merits despite the delay and upheld the Single Judge's decision. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the appointment based on forged certificates should have been annulled, urging for an enquiry into the matter.

Validity of Appointments and Lack of Direct Impact on Petitioner:
The selected candidates were appointed in 1981 and had received promotions in 1985 and 1989. There was no stay order on their appointments, and they continued in service. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner was not directly affected by these appointments. The Court refrained from delving into the petitioner's locus standi, emphasizing that the High Court could not effectively resolve disputes regarding forged certificates under Articles 226 and 227. The Court highlighted that the petitioner could have pursued criminal action or sought redressal through competent authorities, which was not done.

Past Legal Precedents and Lack of Justification for Interference:
Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that challenging appointments after a significant period could prejudice the appointed candidates who had been in service for many years. The Court noted that an enquiry against selected candidates for forged certificates had been conducted earlier, but it was for the State Government to address the issue. The Court found no justification to interfere with the appointments made in 1981, considering the time elapsed and lack of further action taken by authorities despite allegations of forged certificates.

Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions:
After considering all aspects, including past legal precedents, lack of direct impact on the petitioner, and absence of further action on alleged forged certificates, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, concluding that there was no basis for exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. No costs were awarded in this matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the challenge to the selection and appointments made by HPSC for the post of District Food and Supplies Controller, the petitioner's locus standi, the validity of appointments, lack of direct impact on the petitioner, past legal precedents, and the Court's decision to dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.