'Fraud Vitiates Everything': MP High Court Orders Removal Of Shivpuri's Malaria Technical Supervisor For Filing Fake Experience Certificate

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia in his order observed, “Playing fraud on the selection committee or filing the forged documents is a serious matter which cannot be ignored. It is not a simple case of a wrong award of three marks only on the basis of some genuine documents. Fraud vitiates everything. Therefore, instead of reducing three marks from the total of respondent No.9 which was awarded to him while preparing the merit list, this court is of the considered opinion that since the respondents No.9 had filed a forged experience certificate, therefore his candidature as well as selection is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, selection of respondent No.9 Shri Gaurav Bhargav is hereby quashed and the post held by Shri Gaurav Bhargav is hereby declared vacant. Shri Gaurav Bhargav will stop performing work as MTS with immediate effect.”

Background

The court was hearing a  petition questioning a 2013 selection process for the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor and to declare the selection of certain candidates–Respondent No. 6 to 10 to the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor, Shivpuri as illegal.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor which specified the educational qualification for candidate as Graduate in Science with Biology Subject and preferably persons having the work experience. The advertisement mentioned that the appointment shall be on contractual basis for a period of one year which can be extended subject to good performance by the candidate. It was further submitted that although the petitioner secured maximum marks in written examination but he was deliberately given less marks in interview, as a result he could not compete with other candidates and was ultimately declared unsuccessful. Thus, the petitioner was aggrieved by the less marks awarded to him by the Selection Committee in the interview.

The counsel for the State submitted that since the Selection Committee–formed under chairmanship of Collector, Shivpuri was competent to develop its own procedure for selection therefore, the interview was conducted.

The counsel for respondents 6 to 10 supported their selection and it was submitted that since respondent No. 6 had already left the job, the petition as far as it relates to respondent No. 6 has rendered infructuous.

Findings

Selection committee competent to develop on procedure to select

The first question for consideration is as to whether the Selection Committee was competent to develop its own procedure for making his selection or not.

The Court noted that the selection of MTS was to be done at a District Level. A selection committee was to be constituted under the chairmanship of the District Collector. The committee was competent to develop its own procedure of selection through interview/written examination/multiple choice questions etc.

The Court also noted that as per the guidelines for recruitment to the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor, the Selection Committee had full authority to develop its own procedure for selection through interview/written examination/multiple choice questions etc.

Court can't adjudicate when selection committee is not a party

The counsel for petitioner submitted that since petitioner was deliberately given less marks for interview, therefore his sum total was less than that of respondents No. 6 to 10 whereas respondents No. 6 to 10 have been awarded exorbitant marks with the intention to oust the petitioner from the selection process.

On the petitioner's allegation that members of the selection committee had deliberately awarded less marks to the petitioner, the Court said that since the marks were awarded by the selection committee on the basis of performance of petitioner in interview and in absence of any material as well as in absence of necessary parties, the Court was not in a position to adjudicate.

“…If any allegation of malafide or bias is made against a person, then that person is necessary party and if the said person is not impleaded then question of malafide cannot be considered...Even the selection committee has not been made a party. It is very difficult to prove allegation of malafide against a body. Since the marks were awarded by the selection committee on the basis of performance of petitioner in interview and in absence of any material as well as in absence of necessary parties, this Court is not in a position to adjudicate as to whether the members of the selection committee had deliberately awarded less marks to the petitioner or not ?,” the Court said.

Candidate filed forged experience certificate based on which additional marks were given

It was noted that respondent no. 9 had submitted a forged experience certificate and in spite of that he was granted three marks for his past experience. On perusal of the aforesaid certificate, the Court noted that the attendance register of the concerning department where Respondent No. 9 worked, did not contain his signature.

However, in the return filed by Respondent No. 9, he claimed that he had worked as Volunteer under the instructions of the Specialist without there being any written appointment. Neither the counsel for the State or counsel for respondent No. 9 could explain as to how the CMHO or Specialist can allow any private person to work in a District Hospital as a Dresser without there being any record. Thus, it was held that respondent No. 9 filed forged experience certificate on the basis of which three additional marks were given to him.

“It is really surprising that the respondent No. 9 was granted three additional marks on the ground that he is having an experience of 2 years and 10 months whereas even the certificate which has been filed by petitioner as Annexure P/9 merely says that the respondent No.9 had worked only for a period of three months i.e. 24.01.2006 to 24.4.2006. The respondent No.9 has also not claimed that he has worked somewhere else for a period of 2 years and 10 months. He has also not filed copy of any experience certificate along with return. Therefore, it is clear that not only the experience certificate relied upon by the respondents No.9 was forged but the selection committee has also wrongly given three marks for having an experience of 2 years and 10 months.”, the Court said.

Another question before the Court was that whether respondents should be allowed to re-prepare the merit list on the basis of marks obtained by candidates. Since it was contended that the Respondent No. 9 was deliberately awarded less marks, therefore the Court directed the respondents to not award appointment to the petitioner and declare the said post as open for fresh recruitment.

Case Title: Nitin Gautam Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 4202 Of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 73

Click Here To Read/Download Order