This happened in 1986. Till today, the employer - the state government photo registry - has not determined if it gave the job of a peon to the right Champa.
The Gujarat high court termed the case a "very unique and interesting matter" but refused to intervene further and directed the state department to sort it out. A fascinating twist in the case came when the metropolitan court held that there was no forgery or impersonation by the Champa who got the job.
The litigation was triggered in 1989. Champa S Rana (henceforth referred to as Champa-1 to avoid confusion), a resident of Hiralal ni Chali, was appointed as a peon in the government photo registry in Ahmedabad in 1986. She got the job on the basis of a call letter she had received from the employment exchange.
A year later, another woman claiming to be the real Champa S Rana (Champa-2) approached the department and alleged that her namesake neighbour had grabbed her job. She alleged that Champa-1 had purloined the employment exchange's letter meant for her, appeared for the interview, and started serving as a peon.
The department removed Champa-1 from the job after an inquiry. She moved the Gujarat high court in 1989 claiming that she was the real candidate. The high court protected Champa-1's job for 13 years.
In 2002, the high court finally told the government to settle the dispute. That year the department filed an FIR with the Madhavpura police station accusing Champa-1 of assuming the identity of a government servant, duping by assuming a false identity, forgery, and using forged documents.
Two officers of the department were charged for conspiring to grant her a job illegally. One of these officers passed away during trial and the other was let off because there was no sanction from the government to prosecute him.
A metropolitan court began the trial. Since Champa-1 had successfully faced the interview and had provided valid documents at all levels, the court concluded that she had at no stage assumed a false identity or forged documents. On October 30, the metropolitan court acquitted Champa-1. The court, however, observed that officers who had interviewed the candidate should have verified documents carefully because the educational qualifications and birth dates of the two Champas differ.
Champa-1 was born in 1954 while Champa-2 was born in 1962. The court also noted that the government had granted permission to prosecute Champa-1 in 1989, but the FIR was filed 13 years later.
from Times of India https://ift.tt/2A8nGdM
