Vishnu Shanker Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4718 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5168 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Vishnu Shanker Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Avneesh Tripathi, Ved Byas Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4; Sri Avneesh Tripathi for the respondent no.2; and Sri Ved Byas Mishra for the respondent no.3; and have perused the record.

2. This petition seeks quashing of the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi, on a reference application of the petitioner, under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

3. A glimpse at the factual matrix of this case would be appropriate to understand the controversy in issue.

3(i) The writ petitioner was appointed a teacher in an educational institution by the name of Indira Gandhi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaswal Bazar, Rajabari, Gorakhpur (for short the institution). A dispute arose as to his testimonials. Upon finding that the certificate of Shiksha Shastri, which is equivalent to B.Ed degree, relied by the petitioner to profess eligibility for the post, obtained from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (for short the University), is not verifiable, the management of the institution proceeded to recommend termination of the services of the writ petitioner. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (for short the Board) refused to accord approval to the proposal for termination of services of the writ petitioner against which the management filed Writ A No. 37501 of 2011. In the meantime, as the management did not make payment of salary, the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur (for short DIOS) directed single operation of the salary account of the institution. Challenging the order of single operation of the account, the management filed Writ A No. 20659 of 2012.

3(ii) In Writ A No. 37501 of 2011, on 10.05.2012, the writ court passed the following order:-

"Original records pertaining to Shiksha Shastri Examination conducted by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi of the year 1985 have been produced today before the Court by the counsel for the University Sri Ved Vyas Mishra, Advocate.

The tabulation register in original has been examined in the presence of the counsel for the University, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent no. 4 by the Court.

It is apparently clear from the same that Roll No. 3346 in respect of the said examination pertains to one Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra s/o Sri Kapileshwar Prasad Mishra and such roll number was not allotted to respondent no. 4, namely Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh.

It is, therefore, established before this Court, at least as on date, that the Shiksha Shastri Examination Degree and Mark-Sheet produced by respondent no. 4 in the matter of his selection for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as well as before the Committee of Management of the institution is a forged document.

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that till the next date of listing respondent no. 4 shall not be paid salary without the leave of the Court.

Respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit in both the writ petitions.

The original records are directed to be returned to the Counsel for the University with the direction that a photostat copy of the relevant page of the computation register shall be supplied to the Bench Secretary today itself, which may be kept on record.

List on 09th July, 2012 along with connected matter."

3(iii) Pursuant to the above order, when the payment of salary of the writ petitioner was stopped, the writ petitioner, namely, Vishnu Shanker Singh, filed Writ A No. 3597 of 2015.

3(iv) Writ A Nos. 37501 of 2011; 20659 of 2012; and 3597 of 2015 were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a detailed order dated 30.11.2017. Writ A Nos. 37501 of 2011 and 20659 of 2012 were allowed whereas Writ A No. 3597 of 2015 was dismissed.

3(v) While deciding the aforesaid three petitions, the learned Single Judge in view of the earlier order dated 10.05.2012, already extracted above, after hearing both sides and after exchange of the pleadings, and upon finding that the Examination Committee of the University had already taken a decision, after examining the records of the University, that the Shiksha Shastri marks-sheet set up by the writ petitioner, namely, Vishnu Shanker Singh, was bogus and forged, took a conscious decision to allow the petitions of the management and dismiss the petition of the writ petitioner.

3(vi) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner filed three Special Appeals before Division Bench of this Court. These three special appeals, namely, Special Appeal Defective No. 322 of 2018; Special Appeal Defective No. 323 of 2018; and Special Appeal No. 300 of 2018, were dismissed by a common order dated 13.08.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.

3(vii) However, as the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing off the aforesaid three writ petitions in its order, dated 30.11.2017, had clarified that the order of the Writ Court shall not come in the way of the petitioner Vishnu Shanker Singh to pursue his representation said to have been filed before the Chancellor against the decision/resolution of the University dated 29.06.2016, the writ petitioner pursued his representation before the Chancellor, which has now been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.12.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that neither the learned Single Judge, while deciding the earlier three writ petitions, nor the Division Bench, while hearing the Special Appeals arising therefrom, or the Chancellor, called for the original records of Shiksha Shastri Examination 1985, pursuant to which the writ petitioner got Shiksha Shastri degree. It is his contention that the original record was filled by hand whereas the learned Single Judge perused the cross list and the tabulation register prepared therefrom, which cannot be considered the original record and, therefore, it would not be conclusive. He submits that if the original record is seen then it would be found that the petitioner undertook the course for Shiksha Shastri and not Ashok Kumar Mishra. It is his submission that one Ashok Kumar Mishra fraudulently obtained Shiksha Shastri certificate from the University and the University, to protect its own misconduct, has fraudulently framed the writ petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the University and the Chancellor submitted that the record of the University pertaining to Shiksha Shastri available with the University of the year 1985 was produced not only before the Examination Committee of the University which passed the resolution dated 29.06.2016, against which reference application under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act was filed, but also this Court, on 10.05.2012, during the course of Writ A No.37501 of 2011, as is clear from the order passed in Writ A No. 37501 of 2011. It has been submitted that the record reflected the name of Ashok Kumar Mishra against Roll No. 3346 in respect of which the writ petitioner claims a marks-sheet and the same was entered in the cross list as well as tabulation register without any cutting, deletion or overwriting thereby clearly suggesting that there was no manipulation to non-suit the petitioner so as to confer benefit on someone else. It has also been contended that it is the tabulation register and the cross list of an examination which is maintained in the University whereas the original answer scripts, etc. are weeded out from time to time and therefore verification of a degree or a marks-sheet can be made only from the tabulation register and the cross list available with the University. And as the original of those documents have already been perused not only by the Examination Committee of the University but also by this Court, no further indulgence need be granted as it would be an exercise in futility and would be a complete waste of time.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that on 10.05.2012 the learned Single Judge, while hearing Writ A No. 37501 of 2011, had passed an interim order which clearly reflects that the original record pertaining to Shiksha Shastri examination of the year 1985 conducted by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi was produced before the Court by the counsel for the University and was perused by the Court. The interim order further reflects that the tabulation register in original was examined in the presence of the counsel for the University, the counsel for the petitioner; and the counsel for the respondent no.4. It is noteworthy that the respondent no.4 in that petition was none other than the petitioner herein. After examining the records, the learned Single Judge, in his order dated 10.05.2012, had observed as follows:-

"It is apparently clear from the same that Roll No. 3346 in respect of the said examination pertains to one Ashok Kumar Mishra son of Kapileshwar Kumar Mishra and such roll number was not allotted to respondent no.4, namely, Sri Vishnu Shanker Singh.

It is therefore established before this Court, at least as on date, that the Shiksha Shastri Examination Degree and Marks-sheet produced by respondent no.4 in the matter of his selection for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as well as before the Committee of Management of the institution is a forged document."

7. In the order dated 30.11.2017 of the learned Single Judge disposing of Writ A Nos. 37501 of 2011; 20659 of 2012; and 3597 of 2015, in paragraph 13 of the judgment, while holding that Writ A No 3597 of 2015 is not maintainable, as it seeks to challenge an order which is consequential to the interim order dated 10.05.2012, it was observed as under:-

"In any case, if the aforesaid assistant teacher was aggrieved with the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, then he could have either filed a Stay Vacation Application or could have challenged it before the higher forum but the writ petition in such circumstances, is not maintainable."

8. Admittedly, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2017 was affirmed by the Division Bench in the Special Appeals preferred by the present writ petitioner and the findings that were recorded in the aforesaid judgment were not disturbed.

9. In these circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the original hand written record of the University was not called and seen and therefore the entire exercise is of no consequence, cannot be countenanced. More so, if the testimonials of a person are not verifiable from the records maintained by the educational institution or the concerned authority, they cannot ordinarily be acted upon, in absence of any declaratory decree of a civil court, on the premise that the records have not been kept properly. No doubt, as and when a criminal action is taken against the petitioner, who is alleged to have set up a forged degree, the standard of proof to record conviction might be different. But, here the question is whether the University did its best to verify the testimonials set up by the writ petitioner. From the record, we find that the petitioner's case was thoroughly examined by the members of the Examination Committee of the University. They cross checked from the cross-list and tabulation register maintained by the University to find out that the Roll Number set up by the petitioner related to some other person. It is noteworthy that the statement of marks-sheet writer, namely, Girish Kumar Pathak, was also recorded who denied his signature on the marks-sheet alleged to have been issued to the writ petitioner under his signature. In this background, if the Chancellor did not consider it appropriate to accept the reference of the writ petitioner against the resolution of the Examination Committee, no fault can be found with it. More so, when there are no allegations of malafides against University staff or its officials. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.3.2021

Sunil Kr Tiwari