http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2447 of 2006

PETITIONER: Navdeep

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21409/2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in this Appeal is to the legality of judgment  rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant who  had questioned her termination of services by the respondents  1 to 4 i.e. State of Punjab and its functionaries. The order of  termination was passed on the ground that she has tampered  with her mark sheet to get employment. Enquiry was  conducted and it was found that she had tampered with the  mark sheet.

       Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

       After passing the matriculation examination, appellant  joined R.R. Bawa, DAV College for Girls, Batala,  Punjab under  the Guru Nanak Dev  University, Amritsar, (in short the  ’University’)  respondent No.5. In June, 1995 she passed the  B. Sc. (Economics), Part III examination securing 418 marks  out of 800 marks.  On the basis of the mark list submitted,  she was admitted to the B.Ed. course under the University  and passed the B.Ed. examination also.  She was selected as  JBT teacher in a Government aided School i.e. Ved kaur Arya  Girls High School, Quadian, Gurdaspur for teaching  mathematics.  While working as a teacher she completed her  M.A. (Economics) examination by correspondence course from  Punjab University, Patiala. While she was working as JBT  teacher a news item was published indicating that 55 teachers  obtained fake degrees and their services were terminated.   Name of appellant was one of them.  The orders of termination  were passed on the basis of the orders passed by the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in a Public Interest Litigation.  Appellant came to know that the allegations so far as she is  concerned related to alleged tampering of marks in B.Sc. Part  III, that is she had actually secured 86 marks in Economics  and not 124, and in Computer Application she had secured  140 marks and not 102 as was shown in the mark sheet  produced by her. On verification of the records from the  University, it was clear that while her total marks remained

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

same, there was increase in the marks of Computer  Application while there was a decrease in marks of Economics.  A writ petition was filed challenging the termination of her  services.  The High Court issued the notices to the  respondents and the University. An enquiry was conducted by  the University and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report  which clearly indicated that there was reduction of marks in  one subject and increase in the other.  Stand of the appellant  was that she has not got any benefit out of the alleged  tampering and she was not responsible for the same. But her  claim was not accepted.  Though the Enquiry Officer found  that she had not obtained any advantage out of it, yet the  Enquiry Report was to the effect that the obvious purpose for  tampering was to obtain a certain percentage of marks  required for being eligible for admission.  After verifying the  documents in question, it was concluded that she had  tampered with the mark sheet.  It was concluded that there  was only one purpose with which the tampering was done i.e.  to take advantage in various admissions and selections in a  government job as a teacher.  The High Court accepted the  report and dismissed the writ petition.

       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  Enquiry Officer had himself came to hold that the appellant  has not taken any advantage. In any event she had higher  qualification than the minimum educational qualification  required for the post of a teacher and, therefore, even ignoring  the disputed marks, she was clearly eligible.

       In response, learned counsel for the respondents  submitted that one who seeks equity to be done must come  with clean hands.  The various documents examined by the  Enquiry Officer clearly reveal that it was appellant herself who  was responsible for the tampering.  Her so called ignorance  and claim of innocence is clearly untenable.  When it was  noticed that she had been caught, a feeble plea was taken that  she did not verify the correctness of the marks with the official  records.  In the records of the College from where the mark  sheet was taken, the correct marks were recorded. She had  signed in token of having verified the marks.  

       The Enquiry Officer’s report is based on evaluation of the  materials examined by him.  There is no dispute raised by the  appellant that in fact she had secured 86 marks in Economics  and not 124, and similarly in Computer Application she had  secured 140 marks and not 102.  The obvious purpose for the  change as has been rightly noticed by the Enquiry Officer, is to  project that she had secured certain percentage of marks  which made her eligible for admission into the higher courses.   In any event, the Enquiry Officer’s conclusions cannot be  termed as perverse to warrant any interference.  That being so,  the action taken by the authorities cannot be faulted.   

But at the same time it is not disputed by the  respondents that the appellant possess the minimum  educational qualification for admission even though the  tempted marks are out of consideration. Learned counsel for  the respondent-State is right in his submission that a person  who resorts to tampering of mark sheet should not be shown  any leniency. But considering the fact that she had rendered  about 10 years of service without almost any blemish and  appears to have otherwise a good academic record, on the  peculiar facts of the case, the Government would do well to  consider whether a fresh appointment can be given to her  ignoring the tampered marks. Considering the peculiar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

circumstances, the matter may be considered in its proper  perspective taking into account the various factors. It is  entirely in the discretion of the Government, and there is no  mandate issued by us.    

       The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.