Can't Cancel Appointments On Mere Allegation Of Discrepancies In Degrees Of Candidates: Rajasthan HC Forms Panel To Conduct Inquiry
The Rajasthan High Court formed a 3-member committee headed by the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for conducting factual inquiry into the allegations against certain individuals regarding discrepancies in the degrees submitted by them at the time of appointment by the education department. Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order formed the committee observing that until the...
The Rajasthan High Court formed a 3-member committee headed by the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for conducting factual inquiry into the allegations against certain individuals regarding discrepancies in the degrees submitted by them at the time of appointment by the education department.
Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order formed the committee observing that until the committee submitted its report to State Of Rajasthan–Secondary Education, Directorate– no prejudicial action could be taken against the petitioners.
"Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and after considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that simply because of the discrepancies as noticed or alleged by the respondents Petitioners' appointments cannot be canceled. The petitioners may have genuine reasons or valid explanation for the discrepancies which the Directorate has pointed out. But, the factual inquiry as prayed by the petitioners cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.With the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to constitute a three-Member Committee to examine the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners vis-avis their defence and also to take into account any other additional/incidental issue that crops up," it said.
The Court was hearing a bunch of writ petitions filed against the notices issued by the concerned District Education Officer cancelling appointments of various candidates alleging discrepancies in the roll numbers, year of passing, date of results etc. in their degrees. It was alleged that there were discrepancies in the degrees which petitioners' had relied upon for seeking appointment and that there were difference in the particulars which were provided in the online application forms if compared with the degrees which they produced at the time of document verification.
It was argued by the petitioners that the appointment was given to them only after a thorough document verification wherein the State had verified the degrees from the universities concerned.
On the contrary, it was alleged by the Board that even though the genuineness of the degrees were ensured by sending letters to three universities, later, it was revealed that the universities had connived with the petitioners and fraudulently granted degrees.
It was further alleged that large number of candidates had asserted in their application forms that their degrees were obtained from the concerned universities whereas the latter did not have that much intake capacity.
Furthermore, the counsel for the State submitted that based on multiple complaints received, the Special Operations Group of Police conducted an inquiry in which serious infirmities were found. Based on this report, the notices for termination were issued.
After hearing the contentions, the Court formed the panel headed by Secretary of the Board comprising of an officer of Joint Director level of the Education Department to be nominated by Principal Secretary of the Education Department and an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to be nominated by Director General of the Special Operations Group.
The committee was constituted to examine the veracity of the allegations, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners, and taking a separate decision in relation to every candidate. The results shall be uploaded on the Board's website.
The court has directed the petitioners to produce–Date of admission in the course and duration of course; if the course undertaken by the petitioners was correspondence or a regular course; If course was regular, then whether the application for leave was applied/obtained, in case the incumbent was in Government service; Proof of payment of fee for all semesters including date and mode of payment; dates when petitioners attended classes; schedule of examination conducted, if any; place where petitioners take the exam; mode of receiving mark sheets–by post or hand.
It was held that the report shall be forwarded to the Directorate based on which the competent authority shall take appropriate action. Till then, "no action prejudicial" to the petitioners' interest shall be taken, the court added.
Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.
Title: Yashwant v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 145