Chennai: Finding that the act of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in misguiding the court and filing a bogus expert opinion to a disputed question resulting in dismissal of a petition are to be construed as an obstruction caused for administration of justice and consequently resulted in miscarriage of justice, the Madras high court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
Justice S.M.Subramaniam directed the Registry, Madras high court, to number the suo-motu contempt petition initiated against the Chairman/DGP, TNUSR Board, and issue notice in accordance with the procedures contemplated. Registry is directed to list the matter for further hearing on April 5, 2019, the judge added.
Originally, contending that on account of wrong key answer to a question, half mark was denied to him, S.Arunachallam, working as a constable and participated in the selection process for recruitment to the post of sub-inspector of police, had filed a petition. In order to find out the correctness of the key answer and to ascertain the genuinity of the claim of the petitioner, the court had directed the board to get an expert opinion.
Accordingly, based on the expert opinion, claiming to be obtained from a Professor of IIT, Madras, furnished by the Board, the court had dismissed the petition. However, subsequently, the petitioner claimed that the expert opinion furnished before the court was a bogus one. The Inspector General of Police and the Member Secretary of TNUSR Board stated that they identified some impersonation in the matter of providing expert’s opinion to the board and in respect of such impersonation a criminal case was registered against G.V.Kumar and D.Moorthy.
Pointing out that the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police before the court on Tuesday was bereft of details about the status and appointment of G.V.Kumar, a psychologist, who was being consulted by the board for several years and the engagement of D.Moorthy, designated as professor, department of Maths, IIT, by Kumar to give expert opinion, the judge said the practice prevalence by the authorities were that at the time of setting the question papers to the examinations, the professor or qualified authority at the time of setting the question papers, were bound to provide the key answers also to the recruiting agency. The key answers submitted by the question paper setter has also not been placed before this court nor the details were provided in the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police. Peculiarly, even the key answers which were referred at the time of evaluation of the answer sheets of all the candidates was also not stated in the affidavit, the judge added.
The judge said subsequently, after the complaint made by the counsel for the petitioner before this court, the board urgently approached the Registrar, IIT, Madras, who offered the opinion stating that, the disputed question did not contains sufficient information, particulars to get meaningful solution and so correct answer could not be find out. If such was the opinion now offered by the IIT Madras what about the candidates who all were similarly placed to that of the petitioner and the number of persons appeared in the selection process. These all were the larger issues and if any such large scale irregularities or illegalities, the same was also to be considered and no such particulars or facts were enumerated in the affidavit filed by the IG of Police. The facts and circumstances now placed before this court reveals that the board had undoubtedly, not acted in accordance with the official procedures for obtaining expert opinion, the judge added.
The judge said the expert opinion submitted before this court cannot be trusted upon. The board had not taken care even to find out the authenticity of the expert opinion. It was further possible that knowingly or intentionally, such expert opinion was obtained and submitted before this court for the purpose of deciding the petition in their favour. “However, this court is of an undoubted opinion that, the respondent (board) had not only misguided the high court, but also filed a bogus expert opinion resulted in dismissal of the petition. Thus the act of the respondent are to be construed as an obstruction caused for administration of justice and consequently, resulted in miscarriage of justice”, the judge added.
The judge said, “It is unfortunate to state that, such a bogus expert opinion obtained by way of impersonation is knowingly filed by the respondent recruitment board. Therefore, the officials of the Board are certainly responsible and accountable for the act of submission of such an unauthenticated document before the high court for the purpose of adjudication of the issues and for delivery of justice. Undoubtedly, the actions of the respondents resulted in denial of justice to the litigant, who approached this court for redressel. Thepetition itself was dismissed based on the expert opinion filed before this court by the respondents. When the counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that the expert opinion submitted is a bogus one, then this court is of the considered opinion that, the respondent had not only interfered with the administration of justice, their act resulted in miscarriage of justice and accordingly, this court has inclined to initiate the suo motu contempt proceedings against the chairman/DGP, TNUSR board”.
