By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the respondent no.2 and direct the respondent no.2 to reinstate the present petitioner. B. During the pendency and final disposal of this petition,. The respondents may be directed to suspend the penalty order and reinstate the present petitioner on the service.”
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as under:
2.1 The petitioner is having permanent physical disability of 42% and having a certificate for the same. The petitioner has passed P.T.C. examination and obtained the degree of the same in the year 20032004. The petitioner has applied for the Teacher (Vidhyasahayak) in the Primary School and respondent no.2 issued call letter with terms and conditions mentioned on 04.06.2009 and he was appointed for the same post by respondent no.2 in the respondent no.3 school. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 after the verification of the disability certificate, stated that, the disability certificate of the petitioner is forged one and the appointment of the petitioner is cancelled vide order dated 02.03.2011.
3. The present petitioner in this petition, has challenged the administrative procedure adopted by the respondents, where he has participated in the selection and got selected as Teacher (Vidhyasahayak) on 02.03.2011. Subsequently, when respondent no. 2 had sent the disability certificate produced by the petitioner to the res no.3 for verification purpose, on verification of the same, the respondent no.3 had intimated res no.2 that certificate of the petitioner is forged one. The petitioner has failed to controvert this fact either by way of oral submission or by adducing proper evidence with regard to his disability.
4. In this regard, learned AGP for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Indian and Another V/s. Avinash D. Mandivikar and ors, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 690, Learned advocate has specifically drawn my attention to the paragraphs no. 9 and 10 which read as under: '”9. A similar plea about long years of service was considered by this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai V. State of Kerala to be inconsequential. In para 19, it was observed: 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false cast certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and no est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits cannot be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired by a status by practicing fraud.
10. The protection under Millind Case cannot be extended to Respondent no.1 employee as the protection was given under the peculiar factual background of that case. The employee concerned was a doctor and had rendered long years of service. This Court noted that on a doctor, public money has been spent and therefore, it will not be desirable to deprive the society of a doctor' s service. Respondent No.1 employee in the present case is a bank employee and the factor which weighed with this Court cannot be applied to him”.
5. Having carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned AGP for the respondent, as also taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bank of India and Another V/s. Avinash D. Mandivikar' s case (Supra), I am in full agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent and of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out any case for granting the reliefs as prayed for in the present petition.
6. In view what has been discussed above, finding no merits in the case, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J] sid//