CHENNAI: Holding that technicality should not come in the way of a case where a fraud is committed on the Constitution and the same is proved, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday confirmed the orders of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) terminating the services of an employee for producing a bogus ST community certificate.
The equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not for aiding those who are guilty of making false claims to snatch the benefits earmarked for members of the reserved community. The courts must shut its doors on such unscrupulous litigants, a Bench of Justices K K Sasidharan and P Velmurugan said.
The Bench was allowing a writ appeal from the chairman and managing director of NLC at Neyveli, challenging the orders dated November 7, 2016, of a single judge setting aside a termination order of NLC dated February 7, 2010.Based on the production of a photocopy of a certificate saying that he belonged to Kondareddy community, the NLC appointed S Mahesh as diploma engineer trainee (electrical) in 1987 with a condition that he should produce the original certificate at a later date.
He failed to do so and on the other hand justified his selection and appointment on the ground that there was no candidate available from ST to contest for the post. Finally, by an order dated February 7, 2010, the NLC held his appointment as invalid.He challenged the same and a single judge on November 7, 2016, quashed the ouster order. Hence, the present appeal from the NLC.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said Mahesh had made a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. His writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the single judge on the sole ground of approaching the court with unclean hands and with contentions known to be false. Even now, Mahesh has no case that he belongs to ST. His parents and brothers and sisters are not STs. Since it is the admitted case of Mahesh that he does not belong to ST, it cannot be said that the NLC was not correct in declaring his appointment as void ab initio. This fundamental aspect was not considered by the single judge.“We are therefore of the view that the single judge was not correct in allowing the petition,” the Bench said and quashed the earlier order.