Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Bhatia vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3542 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Bhatia
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Sharma,H.N. Singh Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4, University.
The writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Prayagraj and order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Hathras (Annexure Nos.12 and 13) to the writ petition.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders referred to above and to stay all further proceeding consequent there upon during the pendency of the writ petition before the Hon'ble Court.
C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in G.S.A.S. Inter College Mushan, Hathras and pay his salary regularly, month to month, if and when, the same falls due."
At the outset, it is stated that controversy involved in the present case that the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.326 of 2020 (Kiral Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 26.02.2021. Referring to that decision it has been stated that rights of the petitioner stand determined in terms of direction no.4 contained in the aforesaid order. It reads as under:-
"(4) So far as the termination orders in reference to tampered mark-sheets are concerned, as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, the University is directed to complete the exercise, as directed by the learned Single Judge, after observance of the provisions of law referred in the judgment and otherwise directed by this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). The order in reference to those candidates would be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of termination/cancellation of appointments would be governed by the outcome of the order passed by the University, as agreed by the learned counsel for the appellants. If the University hold mark-sheets to be genuine instead of tampered of any of the appellants, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments, those would stand set aside. However, if the University records a finding about any of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets, then the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would have effect but it would be from the date of the order passed by the University and accordingly for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the University, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets is kept in abeyance. Those candidates would be allowed to work with payment of salary.
It is, however, made clear that in case any of the candidate fails to participate in the proceedings initiated by the University or delays it, this order would not be to their benefit and accordingly, the direction herein above would remain operative only for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the University. On the expiry of the period given above, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would become effective and thereby the University is directed to complete the exercise within the period given above. In case any candidate fails to cooperate with them, then a separate order for it can be passed but University would not, in any case, delay the process and for that no extension would be given by this Court rather default of the University to comply the direction aforesaid would have consequences of stoppage of salary of those who have to take action and to pass order in pursuance to the direction of this Court. The Vice Chancellor of the University would monitor compliance of this order and in case of delay, he would not be entitle to salary.
The University would be at liberty to make inspection of the marks folio lying with the Registrar, High Court or the S.I.T. for the purpose of verification, if so required and accordingly Registrar, High Court as well as S.I.T. is directed to cooperate with the University for it."
It is submitted that the D.I.O.S. has already taken a decision regarding services of the petitioner and the decision is pending before the University Authorities, who have to take a final decision in terms of the decision of the Division Bench.
In view of above, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the decision made by the Division Bench. It is further expected that the University Authorities shall make final decision within prescribed time.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
Atul
