Allahabad High Court
Vivek Kumar Garg vs State Of U.P. And Others on 18 December, 2017
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED
Court No. - 7 AFR
1-Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47955 of 2012
Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Garg
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- G.K. Singh,S.K. Gaur,V.K. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Shivam Yadav
Connected With
2-Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36498 of 2012
Petitioner :- C/M Brahma Junior High School And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare,Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
3-Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37746 of 2012
Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Shivam Yadav
4-Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38867 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt. Manju Bala
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.R. Singh,S.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1- Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-A No.47955 of 2012, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava in Writ-A No.36498 of 2012 for the petitioner, Committee of Management, B.J. Junior High School, Dadri, Panchsheel Nagar, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-A No.37746 of 2012 and Writ-A No.38867 of 2012, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the concerned District Basic Education Officer.
2- All these writ petitions involve challenge the common order dated 20.6.2012 and as such all these writ petition are being heard together.
3- Writ-A No.47955 of 2012, Writ-A No.37746 of 2012 and Writ-A No.38867 of 2012 have been filed by three assistant teachers to challenge the impugned order dated 20.6.2012, whereby their appointments have been disapproved/cancelled and the recovery of 50% of the salary received by them has been directed to be made from them. Writ-A No.36498 of 2012 has been filed by the Committee of Management, Braham Junior High School, Dadri, district Meerut,through its manager challenging the impugned order, whereby 50% of the salary received by illegally and fraudulently appointed assistant teachers and other employees has been ordered to be recovered from the manager of the institution.
Submissions on behalf of Petitioners
Writ-A No.47955 of 2012
4- Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner, Vivek Kumar Garg was found except the allegation that in the MR his B.Ed. degree was shown from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, although, he obtained B.Ed. degree from Lucknow University in the year 2000. The approval of appointment of the petitioner was granted by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic ), Meerut Division, Meerut vide order dated 21.2.2007 w.e.f. 15.5.2004. Thus, much prior to his appointment, the petitioner was having a valid B.Ed. degree from Lucknow University and as such there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit a B.Ed. degree of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. He submits that the petitioner has never submitted any such B.Ed. degree of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut nor there can be any reason for submitting such a degree rather the entire manipulation was the result of mischievous act of the Manager of the Committee of Management. In verification the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner was found valid and effective. No material could be placed on record which may even remotely indicate any illegality in the appointment of the petitioner.
5- The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut by letter dated 15.5.2004. At that time the institution in question was not on government grant in aid list. At the time of obtaining appointment, the petitioner was possessing B.Sc. and M.A. degree of Meerut University obtained in the year 1995 and 1997 respectively. He obtained B.Ed. degree from Lucknow University in the year 2000. It was alleged by the petitioner that the Manager of the Committee of Management took all the original certificates and degrees of the petitioner at the time of giving appointment letter on the pretext that he wants it for verification and thereafter despite being asked repeatedly, the certificates and degrees were not returned by him.
6- No evidence could be brought on record either by the committee of management or by the authority, who passed the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner suffers from any illegality, which may render the appointment to be void-abinitio. Under the circumstances, the impugned order in so far as it relates to the petitioner Vivek Kumar Garg, deserves to be quashed.
Writ-A No.37746 of 2012 and Writ-A No.38867 of 2012
7- Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners Mahesh Kumar and Manju Bala submits that the appointment of the petitioners were duly approved by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Meerut Region, Meerut vide order dated 24.4.1989 and 21.2.2007 respectively and as such in the absence of any adverse evidence on record, the cancellation of the appointment/approval is wholly unjustified.
Writ-A No.36498 of 2012
8- Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the committee of management submits that the management has appointed three Assistant Teachers namely, Sri Vivek Kumar Garg, Mahesh Kumar and Smt. Manju Bala after following due procedure of law on the basis of certificates and degrees submitted by them. Subsequently, the manager himself questioned the appointments of the aforesaid three assistant teachers on account of forged papers submitted by them. Consequently, proceedings were initiated which resulted in cancellation of their appointments. Therefore, the authorities have committed a manifest error of law and fact to pass the impugned order providing for recovery of 50% of the salary paid to the aforesaid three teachers from the petitioner committee of management. The Committee of Management has neither committed any error of law nor was indulged in any manipulation and as such no recovery can be made from the petitioner Committee of Management/Manager. The inquiry was initiated on the complaint of the committee of management and the complaints against the aforesaid assistant teachers were found to be true as their degrees were found to be forged. Shri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that even if any illegality in appointments are found against the committee of management then, the committee of management may be subjected to action as may be provided under the relevant laws, but since the salaries have been received by the aforesaid three assistant teachers, hence no recovery of the amount can be made from the Committee of Management. To this extent the impugned order is erroneous and deserves to be quashed.
Submissions on behalf of State and Basic Shiksha Adhikari
9- Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order and submits that neither due procedure of law was followed in the appointment of the aforesaid three assistant teachers, namely, Sri Vivek Kumar Garg, Mahesh Kumar and Smt. Manju Bala nor the Committee of Management acted fairly rather it acted in collusion with the aforesaid three assistant teachers and got their appointments on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates and degrees. Under the circumstances, the appointments were void-abinitio and thus a nullity. Consequently, the salary received by the aforesaid three assistant teachers in connivance with the Committee of Management, has been rightly directed to be recovered from them in the ratio of 50:50.
10- Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the concerned District Basic Education Officer also supports the impugned order and adopts the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel.
Discussion and Findings-
Regarding Committee of Management:
11- "Braham Junior High School", Dadri, district Meerut, (Now District panchsheel Nagar) was taken on grant-in-aid list as per order of the State Government vide letter No.2913/79-6-2006-2007 dated 2.12.2006 with effect from 2.12.2006. A consequential letter dated 21.2.2007 was issued by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic ), Meerut Division, Meerut, granting approval for payment of salary to the following teaching and non teaching staffs.
Name of Teacher/Employee Post Date of Approval of Appointment
1. Sri Baleshwar Prasad Tyagi Head Master 12.1.1987
2. Sri Mahesh Kumar Assistant Teacher 24.4.1989
3. Smt. Manju Bala Assistant Teacher 24.4.1989
4. Sri Vive Kumjar Assistant Teacher 15.5.2004
5. Sri Roop Chandra Sharma Clerk 12.1.1987
6. Dharmvir Singh Class-IV 26.4.1989
7. Sri Satish Chandra Class-IV 24.4.1989
_____________________________________________________________________
12- It was further observed in the aforesaid order that it is being issued on the recommendation of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Finance & Accounts Officer and if any, suppression of fact and fake papers are found then the approval for appointment of salary shall automatically stand cancelled.
13- After the institution was taken in-grant-in list, complaints were received by the Basic Education Department, Meerut, that on the basis of forged and fake papers teachers/employees are serving in the said institution and are drawing salary. Consequently, on complaints, the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Meerut, wrote a letter dated 12.5.2009 to the Manager of the institution requiring him to instruct all the employees of the institution to appear before him along with their original educational certificates and only thereafter payment of salary shall be remitted. However, the manage of the institution took no step to instruct teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution, as required by the aforesaid letter of the Finance & Accounts Officer dated 12.5.2009. This fact is evident from his own order of the officiating manager dated 3.11.2010 filed as Annexue-3 to Writ-A No.36498 of 2012 addressed to the aforesaid petitioner Smt. Manju Bala in which he mentioned his first letter to her dated 15.7.2010 pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the Finance & Accounts Officer dated 12.5.2009. It is relevant to mention here that as per allegations of the petitioners, assistant teacher herein, that at the time of their appointments their entire original degrees were taken from them by the Manager Sri Surendra Singh Siwal, who is petitioner no.2 in Writ-A No.36498 of 2012.
14- In paragraph-37 of the said writ petition, the petitioner Committee of Management and the Manager have stated on personal knowledge as under :
"That the original documents pertaining to selection of the disputed teachers was taken away by Baleshwar Prasad Tyagi at the time of termination of his service. A first information Report with regard to the said incident had been filed by the petitioners immediately against Baleshwar Prasad Tyagi. The office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari adopted a false stand before the Director of Education (Basic) that original records of their office had been destroyed by termites".
15- The petitioner committee of management and the manager have apparently made a false statement on personal knowledge as, afore-quoted and have not annexed a copy of the alleged first information report.
16- As per finding recorded in the impugned order, the aforesaid manager, vide his letter dated19.12.2009 addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Khakhaunda lodged a report that the records relating to the school are with the then Head Master. Subsequently, he made another application dated 24.4.2010 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Khakhaunda, that he was carrying the records with him in a bag which has fallen somewhere. A copy of the aforesaid application addressed to Station House Officer, Police Station Khakhaunda, district Meerut, dated 24.4.2010, filed by the aforesaid manager, has been filed as Annexue-7 to Writ-A No.37746 of 2012, is reproduced below:
"czge twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy nknjh
ftyk&esjB ¼ekU;rk izkIr½
dzekad-- fnuakd 24-04-2010
lsok es]
Jheku Fkkuk/;{k egksn;]
Fkkuk&[kj[kSnk AesjBA
fo"k;%& fo|ky; lEcU/kh dkxtkr [kksus ds lEcU/k esaA
egksn;]
fuosnu ;g gS fd ge 24-04-2010 dks ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh esjB ds fy, fo|ky; ls leLr fo|ky; lEcU/kh dkxtkr o jftLVj ysdj vkfMV djkus ds fy, ckbZd ij tk jgs Fks ijUrq tc ge dk;kZy; ij igqaps rks ns[kk fd leLr dkxtkr dk FkSyk ckbZd ij ugh FkkA ge rqjUr okfil Ldwy rd ryk'krs pys vk;s ysfdu leLr dkxtksa dk FkSyk ugha feyk vkSj 25-04-2010 dks Hkh iwjs fnu [kkstrs jgs] ijUrq dksbZ lqjkx ugha yxkA ;fn Fkkus esa bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ lwpuk nsrk gSA rks d`ik gesa lwfpr djus dk d"V djsa] vr% Jhekuth dh lsok esa lwpukFkZ iszf"kr FkSys esa fuEu dkxt FksA
Hkonh;]
g0v0
29-04-2010
izcU/kd
czge twfu;j gkbZLdwy
nknjh AesjBA
1&lHkh v/;kid o deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok iaftdkA
2&leLr cSad iklcqd o pSd cqd AflafMdsV cSad vekSMkA
3&osru jftLVj
4&leLr fiNys nks o"kZ ds osru fcy
5&,evkj jftLVj
6&LVkd jftLVj
7&osru iklcqd ftyk l0 cSad fy0 [kj[kkSnk
8& fu;qfDr i= rFkk vU; Ldwy lEcU/kh dkxtkr"A
g0v0"""
17- The aforequoted Annexure-7 has not been disputed or denied by the Committee of management, Braham Junior High School, Dadri, district Meerut. No material has been placed by the petitioners/Manager that the documents mentioned in the above quoted application were required by the District Basic Education Officer from him to be produced on 24.4.2010. Thus, the case set up by the petitioners by means of his afore-quoted application appears to be a cooked up story.
18- Perusal of the afore-quoted application of the manager to the Station House Officer, Police Station Khakhaunda, district Meerut, shows that he had shown the entire records of the school relating to the teachers and other staffs, namely service book of all teachers and employees, all bank pass books and cheque books of Syndicate Bank, salary registers, all pay bills of last two years, M.R. Register, staff register, salary pass books and appointment letters and other records of the school; were kept in a bag which have been lost, while going on motor-cycle. The sequence of circumstances, clearly indicates that when the manager of the institution felt fear of exposure of his illegal acts, fraudulent appointments and illegal withdrawal of salary from the State exchequer on account of the letter of the Finance & Accounts Officer dated 12.5.2009, then firstly he did not instruct for more than one year the concerned teaching and non teaching staff to produce their original educational certificates before the authority till he shown all the records of his school to have been lost on 24.4.2010 as per alleged application to Station House Officer, Police Station Khakhaunda, district Meerut. It is more than one year thereafter that he wrote first letter to the assistant teacher of the institution on 15.7.2010. He has also not disclosed in the writ petition that when the then Head Master Sri Baleshwar Tyagi took away the records of the school and when he returned, the records to him i.e the Manager.
19- Thus, non production of the relevant records during the course of hearing despite being repeatedly asked by the Director of Education (Basic), appears to be deliberate act of the petitioner committee of management of the institution and its Manager.
20- The findings of fact recorded in the impugned order regarding connivance of the petitioner with the manager of the committee of management, is based on consideration of the circumstances and the relevant materials on record. Therefore, such findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
21- The letter of approval of appointment dated 15.5.2004 filed as Enclosure to Annexure-11 of Writ-A No.36498 of 2012 indicates that the approvals granted by the authorities were subject to the conditions that if the approval has been obtained by suppression of facts then the Manager of the institution shall be fully responsible. Apart from this the findings recorded in the impugned order regarding commission of fraud and suppression of facts as well as connivance in obtaining approval of teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution in question, is based on consideration of relevant evidences on record and as such these findings cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22- In view of the aforesaid as well as in view of the detail facts and findings recorded in the impugned order regarding commission of fraud and in connivance of the manager of the institution in question, do not require interference except in the matter of the assistant teacher Vivek Kumar Garg. Therefore, the order for the recovery of 50% of the illegally withdrawn salary, from the manager of the institution, i.e. the petitioner no.2 of Writ-A No.36498 of 2012 is neither illegal nor unreasonable.
23- In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. B. RajendraSingh and others, JT 2000(3) SC.151, considering the consequences of fraud, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 3 as under :
"Fraud and justice never dwell together". (Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper overall these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judegment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything"(Lazarus Estate Ltd. V. Beasley 1956(1)QB 702).
(Emphasis supplied by me)
24. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others, 2003(8) SCC 319, Hon'ble Supreme Court defined fraud and considered the effect of fraud and misrepresentation and held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 37 as under :
"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well- known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
18.A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.
25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res-judicata.
37. It will bear repetition to state that any order obtained by practising fraud on court is also non-est in the eyes of law."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
25. In the case of S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 7 as under :
"7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
26. Similar principles with regard to fraud have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JT 2005(6) SC 391, para 7 to 15, JT 2007(4) SC 186, para 19 to 39, JT 2009(9) SC 365, para 22 and 23, JT 2008 (3) SC 452, para 12.3 to 15, JT 2009(5) SC 278, para 13 to 18 and 28 and JT 2008(8) SC 57.
27- In view of the above discussions, Writ-A No.36498 of 2012 deserves to be dismissed.
Regarding Petitioner Smt. Manju Bala
28- There is no dispute that the selection and appointment of the petitioner as an assistant teacher was wholly illegal and based on suppression of facts, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not possessing required essential qualification for being appointed as an assistant teacher. She was not having any training certificate. As per her own case, she was not even B. Ed. at the time of her alleged appointment. She could not produce any letter of her appointment dated 2.7.1987 before the respondent no.2, although, she produced a photostat copy of an alleged appointment letter dated 25.4.1989 which does not even contain necessary description of her appointment and the nature of appointment, post of appointment and Pay-scale etc. In her representation dated 2.11.2011, she took the stand that she was appointed in the year 1989 as an untrained assistant teacher in Sanskrit. Thus, three conflicting stand regarding date of appointment had been taken by her without any dispute to her ineligibility for appointment as an assistant teacher in terms of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.
29- In the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact of appointment obtained by fraud and held in para 29.1 to 29.10
as under :
"29.1 Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
29.2 Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
29.3 When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
29.4 A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
29.5 Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
29.6 The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
29.7 The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
29.8 An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
29.9 An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
29.10 The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
30- The detail findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences and circumstances, have been recorded by the respondent no.2 in the impugned order which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity pointed in the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, Writ-A No.38867 of 2012 deserves to be dismissed.
Regarding Petitioner Mahesh Kumar
31- As per his own representation dated 2.11.2011 and 14.11.2011, this petitioner was temporarily appointed in the year 1980 by the Manager Sri Surendra Singh Siwal and he joined on 1.7.1980. At that time he was simply B.Com. This petitioner has neither produced any letter of his appointment of the year 1980 nor could disclose that by which process and by whom he was selected and appointed. He could also not produce any letter of approval of his appointment.
32- Undisputedly, the petitioner does not possess the required minimum qualification for being appointed as an assistant teacher in a Junior High School. He was untrained at the time of the alleged appointment and thus, was not possessing the required minimum qualification under Rule 4 and 5 of the 1978 Rules. The said petitioner took a stand that he was regularly appointed in July 1982, but he could not produce any letter of appointment.
33- As per M.R. Submitted by the committee of management, the date of appointment of the petitioner Mahesh Kumar is 15.7.1988 and his date of approval by the District Basic Education Officer is shown to be 24.4.1989. The subsequent showing by the petitioner that he has passed B.Ed. from Rajasthan University in the year 1979, as per marksheet bearding Roll No.198, was found to be forged on verification as per letter of the Controller of the Examination, Rajasthan University being letter No.5-A/Shiksha/2010/5250 dated 10.12.2010, who has informed that on the aforesaid roll number the name of a student, namely, Sri Baijnath Tyagi is shown. Thus, the petitioner has not only found to be not possessing the required minimum qualification but he has also found to be guilty of making of his claim on the basis of a forged degree of B.Ed.
34- It is settled law that fraud and justice never dwell together. The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of fraud, have already been mentioned above, which squarely apply on the facts of the case of this petitioner also. Therefore, his writ petition also deserves to be dismissed.
Regarding Petitioner Vivek Kumar Garg
35- The case of this petitioner in so far as his minimum required qualification and genuineness of degree is concerned, stands on a different footing than the petitioner Smt. Manju Bala and Sri Mahesh Kumar. Undisputedly, this petitioner is working as an assistant teacher in the institution in question w.e.f. 15.5.2004 and approval to his appointment was granted by the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut vide letter No.E(2) Ni-334/2004-05 dated 15.5.2004. He had passed B.Ed. From Lucknow University in the year 2000. According to him, he submitted his certificate of B.Ed. from Lucknow University, before the Manager of the institution. On verification by the authorities, the Registrar, Examination, Lucknow University vide letter No. EDR/65/12 dated 15.3.2012 has verified the aforesaid B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner Sri Vivek Kumar Garg. Under the circumstances, there was no reason or occasion for the petitioner to produce the certificate in the year 2003-04. A forged B.Ed. Certificate of Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut of the year 1997, when at the time of obtaining the appointment in the year 2004, he was possessing a valid and genuine degree of B. Ed. of Lucknow University, which he obtained in the year 2000. This supports the allegation of the petitioner against the Manager, as noted in the impugned order.
36- Under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration afresh by the respondent no.2 after affording him opportunity of hearing.
37- In view of the above discussions, Writ-A No.36498 of 2012, Writ-A No.37446 of 2012 and Writ-A No.38867 of 2012 are dismissed. Writ-A No.47955 of 2012 is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.6.2012 to the extent it relates to the petitioner Sri Vivek Kumar Garg, is hereby quashed.
38- Matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 to pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Sri Vivek Kumar Garg. The recovery as directed by the impugned order against the committee of management/Manager relating to the salary received by the petitioner Vivek Kumar Garg, shall abide by the decision of the respondent no.2, as directed above.
Order Date :- 18.12.2017
Ak/
