1. This Letter Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 14.7.2010 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 12179 of 2010, filed by the appellant/writ petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the selection of Sunita Rani- respondent No. 5, as Senior Scientific Assistant(Chemistry). L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;)
2. Few facts material to the controversy may first be noticed. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 4, advertised various posts of different departments, vide advertisement No. 15/2007 dated 7.12.2007 and those posts included two posts of Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) in the Police Department (hereinafter referred to as "the post"). Being eligible, the appellant- petitioner applied for that post. He claimed that he fulfilled all the qualifications. His application was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the condition of one year experience in Scientific Laboratory. He preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 6204 of 2009. In that writ petition, a direction was issued that he be provisionally interviewed by respondent No. 4. However, the same was finally dismissed, vide judgment dated 19.10.2009, on the ground that he failed to secure marks adequate to merit selection. He secured 37.36 marks whereas respondent No. 5 secured 45.56 marks. After the result of the selection was published in the newspaper on 10.7.2009, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from the official respondents about the experience gained by respondent No. 5 and about the qualification of the subject expert, who was present at the time of interview. That information was not supplied to him and he approached the State Public Information Commissioner and it was only thereafter that the requisite information was supplied. As per L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -3- that information, respondent No. 5 worked in International Testing Centre from 1.9.2005 to 31.3.2006 and, as such, she had not completed one year's experience which was necessary for appointment to the post. However, in the Certificate submitted by her, along with the application, it was mentioned that she worked in the said International Testing Centre from June, 2005 to June, 2006. Thus, the Certificate, so submitted by her, gave birth to an argument that it is forged and fabricated and has been manipulated by her only for getting herself selected to
the post. As per the information so furnished, the subject expert, at the time of interview of respondent No. 5, was Sh. M.K.Goyal, Director, FSL, who is not an expert in the subject of Chemistry and is an expert in Biology. Thus, the interview so conducted, for the selection of respondent No. 5, is illegal. The appellant claimed that on these grounds, the selection of that respondent is liable to be set aside.
3. In the writ petition, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement wherein they admitted that Dr. M.K.Goyal was the subject expert at the time of the interview of respondent No. 5. However, according to them, he had sufficient knowledge of all the divisions in Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, including Chemistry Division. Moreover, the decision with regard to the selection of a candidate was to be taken by all the members of the committee and not by the subject expert alone. Regarding the L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -4- experience of respondent No. 5 for the purposes of her selection to the post, they pleaded that besides her having worked in International Testing Centre for seven months i.e. from 1.9.2005 to 31.3.2006, she also worked in National Resource Centre for Forensic Psychology, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujrat, as per the Certificate issued by them, from 19.6.2006 to 15.12.2006 and she also worked in Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, from 28.3.2007 to 28.12.2007, as per the Certificate issued by the said Laboratory. Therefore, she had the requisite experience of one year.
4. Respondent No. 5 in her reply pleaded that the experience Certificate, so challenged by the appellant-petitioner, was never considered for her selection as she was otherwise fulfilling the condition of one year experience, regarding which the Certificates were filed with the application. The appellant-petitioner has not said anything about those Certificates. She submitted her appointment letter, upon which salary was mentioned, and got the objection removed and completed her condition of 12 months experience as on one of the Certificate there was no objection. The other Certificate, which is being objected to by the appellant-petitioner, was never considered for her selection. Even that Certificate is genuine and is not fabricated. She actually worked in International Testing Centre from June, 2005 to June, 2006.
5. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -5- Judge on the ground that the appellant-petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6204 of 2009 with the prayer that respondent No. 5 should not be appointed to the post in question and on his request he was allowed to compete in the selection but could not make the grade on merits. It was after the dismissal of that petition that he filed the present petition to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground that the Experience Certificate submitted by her is forged one and the same was another way of raising a challenge to the same selection. The points involved in the writ petition were never considered on merits and was dismissed in view of the said observations.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
7. It has been submitted by counsel for the appellant- petitioner that the first writ petition was filed against the order, vide which the application of the appellant-petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not fulfilling the requisite condition of one year experience in Scientific Laboratory. The second writ was filed in the nature of certiorari after the appointment of respondent No. 5 for challenging the same on the ground that she was not eligible to be appointed against the post as she used a forged and fabricated Certificate in order to prove that she was possessing the requisite qualification of experience of one year. The second writ petition should not have been summarily dismissed as the point involved in L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -6- the same was not the subject matter of the first writ petition. She further submitted that on the basis of the information received under the Act, it stands proved that the Experience Certificate, so filed by respondent No. 5 with her application, is forged and fabricated document. That itself entails the quashing of her appointment. She did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post. Therefore, she has no right to hold that post and her appointment is liable to be quashed.
8. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the matter involved in the second writ petition was the same as was involved in the first writ petition. The dismissal of the first writ petition operates as estoppel and the second writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge and there is no legal infirmity in the order under appeal. They also submitted that two other Certificates were filed by respondent No. 5 with her application and as per those two Certificates, she was having the requisite experience of one year. Therefore, even if the Certificate, so challenged by the petitioner, is ignored, even then there is a ground to conclude that respondent No. 5 was possessing the requisite experience. It cannot be held that the said respondent has no right to hold the post.
9. The first writ petition was filed before the appointment of respondent No. 5 after the application of the petitioner was rejected L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite experience of one year. A direction was issued by this Court, vide which he was allowed to appear in the interview and when he obtained less marks in the interview, the writ petition was dismissed. In the second writ petition, which has been filed in the nature of writ of certiorari, he is challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground that she has no right to hold the post as she was not possessing the requisite experience and used a far forged certificate. The second writ petition could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that the first writ petition had been dismissed and was required to be decided on merits.
10. For proper appreciation of the matter, the requisite qualification prescribed for the post is reproduced below:- i) M.Sc. at least 2nd division in anyone of the subject i.e. Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry, Forensic Science from a recognized University or its equivalent degree;
ii) 1 year research and analytical experience in any one of the above mentioned subjects;
For selection, the candidate was required to have one year research and Analytical experience in Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry or Forensic Science. The impugned Certificate (Annexure P-7) was issued by International Testing Laboratory and as per that Certificate, respondent No. 5 worked in that Centre in Chemicals and Instrument L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -8- Section as Analytical Chemist from June-2005 to June -2006. The petitioner obtained the requisite information under the Act and as per that information (Annexure P-8), respondent No. 5 worked in that Centre from 1.9.2005 to 31.3.2006. Thus, apparently she submitted a false and fabricated Certificate. A candidate using the false and fabricated Certificate to be genuine, looses his/her right to hold the post. This act in itself is a criminal act attracting penal consequences. How a person committing a criminal act in order to get himself/herself appointed can be said to have a right to hold the post. It was rightly submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the using of that false and forged certificate itself entails the quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 5.
11. According to her, at the time of her selection, it were the other two Certificates(Annexures R-1 and R-2) which were taken into consideration, though, according to respondents No. 1 to 3, all the three Certificates were considered. The Certificate (Annexure R-1) was issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Haryana, and as per that Certificate, respondent No. 5 worked as Scientific Assistant(Biology Division) from 28.3.2007 to 28.12.2007 and during that period, she worked in the investigation of crime cases related to Biological examination. As per Certificate, Annexure R-2, issued by the National Resource Centre for Forensic Psychology, she worked as Laboratory Technician from 19.6.2006 to 15.12.2006 in L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -9- National Resource Centre for Psychology at Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujrat. The one year research and analytical experience was required in the subject of Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry or Forensic Science. Forensic Science is an all comprehensive term. In its broadest definition, forensic science is the application of science to those criminal and civil laws that are enforced by the police agencies and Courts. The Certificate, R-1, relates to the subject of Biology and Certificate R-2, relates to the subject of Psychology. Can Forensic Psychology be said to be the Forensic Science? In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence Edited by A.Keith Mant (Thirteenth Edition), under the topic 'Forensic Psychology' at page 401, it has been described that "A psychologist is a person without medical qualifications who has a degree in psychology, which concerns the study of normal and abnormal mental functioning usually by means of tests of intelligence, personality, etc.; a psychiatrist is a person with a medical degree. In the best practice there is mutual appreciation by the psychiatrist and the psychologist of the scope of the other's skills. Psychologists have contributed notably to such matters as the reliability of evidence by experimental study, e.g., reproducing the exact circumstances of an alleged crime in the presence of a dozen or so members of the public and showing that the majority have made the wrong interpretation of events. Evidence of identification is notoriously unreliable and contributions have also L.P.A. No. 1769 of 2010(O&M;) -10- been made in this field. In some civil litigation, e.g., claims that head injury has produced permanent brain damage, it has occurred that neurologists have found no evidence of damage while psychologists have sought successfully to show that psychological tests reveal permanent damage. In such cases it is important that opposing counsel should obtain the evidence of another psychologist to consider the reliability of the tests employed, and the extent to which they can measure changes in mental activity".
12. It is to be noted that in the said Laboratory, though it was a Centre of Psychology, she was appointed as Laboratory Technician. Therefore, on the basis of the Certificates, Annexures R-1 and R-2, it can be said that respondent No. 5 was having such an experience for the requisite period. May it be so, still, as already observed, for her act in using the other false and forged Certificate as genuine, she has lost the right to hold the post.
13. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.7.2010 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner is accepted and the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 as Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) is hereby quashed.