[2026:RJ-JP:28277] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1808/2003 URN: CW / 2616U / 2003 Udai Pratap Singh son of Shri Ram Asre Singh, aged about 53 years, resident of Village Mohanpur, P.O. Gopalpur, District Gorakhpur, At present Police Lines, Quarter No.BDR/V/42/Baran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Home & Justice, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota, Rajasthan. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. with Mr. M.S. Fauzdar HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 22/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 10.01.2003 (Annexure-6) whereby the punishment of 'dismissal from service' was imposed on the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings undertaken in terms of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). Order dated 31.12.2003 (Annexure-9) whereby the appeal preferred against the said order stood dismissed, is also under challenge. [2026:RJ-JP:28277] (2 of 6) [CW-1808/2003] 2. The facts are that the petitioner applied for the post of 'Constable' in the category of 'Ex-servicemen' and claimed age relaxation on the said basis. 3. After succeeding in the recruitment process, he was afforded an appointment vide order dated 16.03.1999 (Annexure-2). 4. However, before he could complete his period of probation, he was served with memorandum of charges dated 01.05.2002 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The charges levelled against the petitioner were to the effect that he had served with the Army for a period of 4 years 4 months and 19 days (including 58 days of non qualifying service) only and hence, was not entitled to be granted relaxation qua Ex-serviceman. The next charge levelled was that the petitioner tampered with the 'discharge certificate' submitted by him to the extent that he struck off the word 'non' from the said certificate, that is to say, the seal of 'Non- serviceman was manipulated to read 'Ex-serviceman'. 5. The Inquiry Officer, while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges as levelled against him relied upon the statements of Mr. J.S. Sharma, the Competent Officer of the Army who was examined in the inquiry proceeding as PW-3. The said witness specifically deposed that the discharge book of the petitioner had been tampered with. He further deposed that to avail a pension as Ex-serviceman, a service of 15 years is essential whereas the petitioner had served for a period of 4 years 4 months and 19 days only. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a case of concealment on part of the petitioner as he did not conceal his period of service while applying. While relying upon the judgments [2026:RJ-JP:28277] (3 of 6) [CW-1808/2003] in Rajeshwar Nath Vs. Union of India; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.172/1977 (decided on 09.04.1980) and Harphool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; AIR 1981 Raj 8. Counsel submitted that once being afforded appointment, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated when it was not a case of concealment on his behalf. 7. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings as recorded by the Inquiry Officer are totally in consonance with the evidence available before him. The fact of the petitioner not holding the requisite period of service and further, the discharge ticket having been tampered with were crystal clear on record. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer rightly imposed major penalty and the same was rightly affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the total service period of the petitioner with the Army was 4 years 4 months and 19 days. As per Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex- Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1988'), an Ex-serviceman is a person who retired from such service as mentioned therein, after earning his/her pension. 10. Rule 6A of the Rules of 1988 provides as under: ''6A. Special provision regarding educational qualification.- (1) For appointment to any vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman in Subordinate or Ministerial Service posts, a matriculate ex-serviceman (which term includes an ex-serviceman, who has obtained the Indian [2026:RJ-JP:28277] (4 of 6) [CW-1808/2003] Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force), who has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to the posts for which the essential educational qualification prescribed is graduation and where,- (a) work experience of technical or professional nature is not essential; Or (b) though non-technical professional work experience is prescribed as essential, yet the appointing authority is satisfied that the ex- serviceman is expected to perform the duties of the post by undergoing on the job training for a short duration. (2) For appointment to any vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen in Subordinate, Ministerial or Class IV Serices posts, where the prescribed minimum educational qualification is matriculation, the appointing authority may at his discretion relax the minimum educational qualifications in favour of an ex-serviceman who has passed the Indian Army Class-l Examination or equivalent examination in the Navy or Air Force, and who has put in at least 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union and is otherwise considered fit to hold the post, in view of his experience and other qualifications.]" 11. A bare perusal of the above provision reflects that an Ex- serviceman is entitled for appointment to any vacancy reserved for such category if he has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union. [2026:RJ-JP:28277] (5 of 6) [CW-1808/2003] 12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had not been granted any pension by the Army as he had not completed the qualifying service period for pension. In that event, even if the fact of tampering with the discharge certificate is ignored, the petitioner was clearly not even eligible to claim any relaxation qua the category of Ex-servicemen. 13. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had completed 15 years of service with the Army. In that event, the petitioner not even falling in the category of 'Ex-serviceman' could not have claimed any such entitlement. It is evident that because of the petitioner having applied in the category of Ex-servicemen, he was granted the age relaxation. Had the said age relaxation not been granted, the petitioner who was more than 25 years of age as on 01.01.1998 could not have been eligible even to apply. 14. Further, PW-3 who specifically deposed before the Inquiry Officer that the discharge certificate was tampered with, was not cross-examined by the petitioner despite opportunity being granted for the same. 15. In that event, the findings as recorded by the Inquiry Officer does not deserve any interference, the same being in consonance with the material available before him. The Appellate Order too does not deserve any interference for the same reasons. 16. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the petitioner to the effect that once being appointed, the petitioner could not have been terminated, this Court is of the clear opinion that an appointment obtained on basis of forged documents or incorrect statements is void ab initio. [2026:RJ-JP:28277] (6 of 6) [CW-1808/2003] 17. The appointment which is wrong from the very inception can be termed to be so at any stage. As is the settled position of law, the person who obtains a job with fraud cannot claim any entitlement, whatsoever. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu; (2005) 7 SCC 177 categorically held that a person who enters service by playing fraud cannot be allowed to continue even for a day, and that the consequential termination or removal is not punitive but merely a declaration that no valid appointment ever came into existence. 18. In view of the above analysis, no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed. 19. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 13/ARVIND