Arun Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8635 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on : 12.05.2022
 
Delivered on : 01.08.2022
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29448 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Mishra
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Misra,H.N.Singh,Sanjeev Singh,Siddharth Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Goyal,J.R. Maurya,Krishna Mohan Singh,Ram Gopal Tripathi,S.R. Singh,S.Singh,Vikash Budhwar
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 139771 of 2016

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the review applicant and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the petitioner-opposite party.

2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of Civil Misc. Review Application No. 139772 of 2016 which has been filed for review of the judgement and order dated 21.12.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29448 of 2009, Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others, connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67493 of 2009, Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others.

3. The delay condonation application is supported by affidavit of Sri Ramesh Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, who claims to have joined the post in August, 2015. It has been averred in the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application that the aforesaid District Inspector of Schools received information from one Virendra Kumar Pandey that certificate of the petitioner, Arun Kumar Mishra, is forged and he had never passed the M.A. (English) examination in the year 1981. The judgement of this Court under review is based on correctness of the aforesaid qualification of the petitioner, Arun Kumar Mishra, in the year 1981. The petitioner was directed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, in September, 2015 to supply his original academic certificates but he never responded despite repeated demands. Same was also required from the Manager of the institution but he also did not responded to his requests. The petitioner never passed M.A. (English) examination in the year 1981 and he has forged the certificate and obtained order from this Court. The University informed on 13.04.2016 that the petitioner, Arun Kumar Mishra, has not passed M.A. (English) examination in the year 1981. Thereafter, permission was sought from the State Government to file review application and hence, this application was filed on 29.04.2016.

4. In view of the above facts, prayer has been made for condoning the delay in filing of the review application.

5. Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the review-applicant, has submitted that fraud vitiates all proceedings and only delay cannot be said to be fatal for filing the review application. The deponent is a vigilant officer and has approached this Court pointing out the fraud committed by the petitioner/opposite party before this Court and getting the order illegally passed by this Court and delay has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application which may kindly be allowed and the review applicant be permitted to address this Court on merits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the review applicant and has submitted that the delay condonation application has been filed only on behalf of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, and Director of Education (Secondary) whose recommendations to the Board and the decision taken by the U.P. Secondary Services Selection Board, were set-aside, have not filed the same. He has submitted that there is no explanation in the delay condonation application regarding the delay caused from 21.12.2011 to the date the District Inspector of Schools, Balllia, received information from some Virendra Kumar Pandey in August, 2015. Nothing has been stated about Virendra Kumar Pandey who informed the District Inspector of Schools aforesaid about the fact that the certificate of petitioner/opposite party, Arun Kumar Mishra, was forged.

7. The review application has been filed with an unexplained delay of more than 5 years and deserves to be rejected.

8. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that only on account of delay, the review application filed by the review-applicant may not be subjected to rejection and for the purpose of hearing, the grounds raised in the review petition, this delay condonation application deserves to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the review application is condoned.

10. The review application is treated to be filed within time.

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No. 139772 of 2016

1. This review application has been filed on the ground that the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, proceeded with the selection and recommended panel of three names to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, including the name of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the petitioner in collusion with Dr. Bhola Pandey, who was manager of institution, namely, Amar Shaheed Sri Kaushal Kumar Inter College, Naraingarh, Ballia, and Baba Luxman Das Intermediate College, Bairiya Bazar, Ballia, obtained experience certificates and on the basis of which he was selected. A writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17199 of 2009 (Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P.) was filed challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that his academic certificates are forged and by the order dated 03.04.2007, this Court directed the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, to enquire the allegations against the petitioner and the Director aforesaid submitted a report dated 22.01.2008 wherein it was stated that the experience certificate of Arun Kumar Mishra and his marksheet of M.A. (English) examination is forged. Hence, his appointment on the post of Principal was recommended for cancellation and the manager of the institution was directed to relieve the petitioner. It has been pleaded that in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2011, there is no reference to the decision of the Director of Education (Secondary) dated 22.01.2008 when the aforesaid order was annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. The Director of Education recorded clear finding that at the time of his selection, the petitioner produced the marksheet of M.A. (English) examination of the year 1980. At the time of hearing accorded to him and in pursuance of the order of the High Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17199 of 2009, he produced marksheet of M.A. (English) examination of the year 1981. On comparison of both the marksheets, it was found that in the marksheet of 1981, in place of Roll No. 497, Roll No. 939 was mentioned after erasing the Roll No. 497. It shows that there was manipulation in the marksheets. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner in collusion with the employees of the Selection Board committed the aforesaid manipulation. There is material omission on the part of the learned Single Judge regarding non-consideration of the report of the Director of Education (Secondary). The petitioner claimed that he had passed M.A. (English) examination in the year 1980 and in the year 1982, he has passed B.Ed. from Magadh University. In the writ petition, he has come with alternative academic qualification that he has passed M.A. (English) examination in 1981 and in 1982, he passed B.Ed. from Madan Mohan Malviya Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya, Bhatpar Rani, Deoria. This Court only relied upon the instructions of the University dated 18.12.2009 which showed that the petitioner appeared as regular student in the year 1979 in M.A. Previous and passed the same. He took admission in M.A. second year in 1980 but did not appear in the examination. He appeared in M.A. final year in the year 1980-81 as an ex-student and his result was declared in the year 1982. The information supplied by Allahabad University indicated that Enrollment No. BB8808 was allotted to Arun Kumar Mishra, son of Raghunath Prasad Mishra. In his B.Ed. course, the petitioner/opposite party mentioned his Enrollment No. BB8808 and passing B.A. examination in the year 1978. The University further informed by the letter dated 15.03.2022 that Roll No. 939 was not allotted to any student in M.A. final in the session 1981-82. It has been submitted that this Court has not taken into consideration the order of the Director of Education (Secondary) dated 22.01.2008 annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition while passing the judgement and order dated 21.12.2011 under review. Although the order was set-aside, but its merits were not examined by this Court.

2. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the review applicant. He has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in his judgment cannot be reviewed on the basis of the material recovered subsequently by the review applicant. He has submitted that the findings recorded earlier in the judgement under review cannot be reappreciated again. He has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Asharfi Devi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 86, in support of his contention.

3. Learned counsel for the review applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 2087 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8479 of 1999) wherein the Apex Court has held that judgement and decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. It can be challenged in any court or even in collateral proceedings. He has submitted that the challenge to the jugement of the learned Single Judge has not been made in collateral proceedings but in the same proceedings because the fraudulent appointment of the petitioner is causing loss of about 1 crore rupees to the State exchequer and on account of pendency of contempt proceedings, the review application deserves to be decided forthwith.

4. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the specific findings recorded by the Director of Education (Secondary) in his order dated 22.01.2008 have not been dealt by this Court. There was finding regarding manipulation in the M.A. marksheet of the year 1980 by way of alteration in the Roll No. from 487 to 314. The instructions before this Court by the University mentioned in the order of this Court was different. It was stated in the instructions that the petitioner passed his M.A. final examination in the year 1981 but before the Director of Education (Secondary), the petitioner claimed that he passed his M.A. final year in 1980. The finding in the order of the Director of Education (Secondary) that the Enrollment No. BB8808 was not allotted to the petitioner, Arun Kumar Mishra, son of Shiv Narayan Mishra but to Arun Kumar Mishra, son of Raghunath Prasad Mishra, was not dealt by this Court at all. The findings of Director Education (Secondary) in the order dated 22.01.2008 are as follows :-

श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गये अंको व प्रमाम-पत्रों का विवरण निम्नवत् है। हाईस्कूल, इण्टरमीडिएट, बी०ए० व एम०ए० के सभी अंक-पत्र व प्रमाण-पत्र डुप्लूकेट(द्वितीय प्रति) प्रस्तुत किये गये हैंः-

क्र०

कक्षा

संस्था का नाम

अनुक्रमांक

उत्तीर्ण वर्ष

जन्म तिथि

प्राप्तांक व श्रेणी

विषय

विद्यालय छोड़ने का दिनांक

1-

जूनियर हाईस्कूल का अस्थाई प्रमाण पत्र

आदर्श महा विद्यालय संकीर्तन नगर, बलिया

1-6-57

द्वितीय

26-6-1957

2-

हाईस्कूल संस्थागत

कुँवर सिंह इण्टर मीडिएट कालेज, बलिया

612984

1-6-57

/500 तृतीय

हिन्दी,

गणित, विज्ञान जीववि० अंग्रेजी

3-

इण्टर

द्वाबा राष्ट्रीय इं०का०, बैरिया बलिया

460020

226/

तृतीय

हिन्दी, भौतिकी, रसा०वि जीववि० अंग्रेजी

4-

बी०ए०

इलाहाबाद विश्व विद्यालय

495/

द्वितीय

अंग्रेजी, प्राचीन इतिहास राजनीति शास्त्र

5-

एम०ए०

इलाहाबाद विश्व विद्यालय

467 काट कर 314

641/

1200 द्वितीय

अंग्रेजी

6-

बी०एड०

मगध विश्व विद्यालय

586/

1000 द्वितीय

अनिवार्य विषय

(सभी)

इसके साथ जूनियर हाईस्कूल की टी०सी०, हाईस्कूल का सार्टी-फिकेट, बी०ए० द्वितीय वर्ष के छात्र के रूप में एन०एस०एस० के शिविर में दिनांक-14-12-77 से 28-12-77 तथा 25-11-78 से 04-12-78 तक प्रतिभाग करने का प्रमाण-पत्र, वर्ष 1976-77 में फुटबाल खेल में बी०ए० प्रथम वर्ष के छात्र के रूप में भाग लेने व कालेज का प्रतिनिधित्व करने का प्रमाण-पत्र ,वर्ष 1976-1977 में हाकी खिलाड़ी के रूप में कालेज का प्रतिनिधित्व करने का प्रमाण-पत्र, बी०ए०डिग्री, एम०ए० का प्राविजनल सार्टीफिकेट, जिसमें तीन अनुक्रमांक 487 काटकर 314 अंकित किया गया है तथा इन्रोलमेण्ट संख्या बी०बी० 8808 उल्लिखित है तथा लक्ष्मणदास द्वारा राष्ट्रीय इण्टर कालेज, बैरिया, बलिया के प्रधानाचार्य श्री जनार्दन राम द्वारा प्रदत्त शिक्षक अनुभव प्रमाण-पत्र, जो तत्कालीन जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, बलिया श्री राजेन्द्र प्रताप द्वारा प्रतिहस्ताक्षरित है।

श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गये बी०ए० व एम०ए० की अंकतालिका व प्रमाण-पत्र के सत्यापन हेतु श्री स्कन्ध शुक्ल, सहायक उप शिक्षा निदेशक (विज्ञान) शिक्षा निदेशालय,उ०प्र०, इलाहाबाद को निर्देशित किया गया। श्री स्कन्ध शुक्ल ने अपने पत्रांक-सं०उ०नि० (विज्ञान)/39/2007-08 दिनांक-17 दिसम्बर 2007 द्वारा परीक्षा नियंत्रक, इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय, इलाहाबाद को श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र के निम्न अभिलेख का सत्यापन किये जाने हेतु प्रेषित कियाः-

(1) बी०ए० इलाहाबाद डिग्री कालेज वर्ष 1978 रोल नं०-1474

(2) एम०ए० अंग्रेजी साहित्य इलाहाबाद विश्व विद्यालय वर्ष 1980 रो० नं०-314 इन्रोलमेण्ट नं०-एम०ए० B.B.8808

अंक पत्र व प्रमाण-पत्र की फोटोप्रति भी उपलब्ध कराई गई। सहायक कुल सचिव परीक्षा इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय ने अपने पत्रांक-सं०कु०व० 14/04/2008 दिनांक 02-01-2008 द्वारा श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र पुत्र श्री एस०एन० मिश्र बी०ए० वर्ष 1978 अनुक्रमांक 1474 नामांकन संख्या- B.B. 8808 उत्तीर्ण द्वितीय श्रेणी विश्वविद्यालय अभिलेख के अनुसार सत्य एवंस ही पाया तथा एम०ए० अंग्रेजी साहित्य वर्ष 1980 अनुक्रमांक 487 विश्वविद्यालय अभिलेख में अनुउपलब्ध बताया तथा अनुक्रमांक 314 एम०ए० 1980 से सम्बन्धित अंक तालिका प्रमाण-पत्र की छाया प्रति उपलब्ध कराने हेतु निर्देशित किया। इस कार्यालय विहित पत्रांक-सा०-1 शिविर/ वाद 6490 2007-08 दिनांक-04 जनवरी-2008 द्वारा श्री स्कन्ध शुक्ल, सहायक उप शिक्षा निदेशक (विज्ञान) शिक्षा निदेशालय,उ०प्र०, इलाहाबाद को सहायक कुल सचिव परीक्षा, इलाहाबाद विश्व विद्यालय के पत्र दिनांक-02-01-2008 के क्रम मेें श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र द्वारा माध्यमिक शिक्षा सेवा चयन बोर्ड, इलाहाबाद को तथा इस कार्यालय में सुनवाई समय प्रस्तुत एम०ए० अंकतालिका,जिसमें अनुक्रमांक-487 को काटकर 314 बनाया गया तथा इलाहाबाद विश्व विद्यालय द्वारा दिनांक-19-9-98 को जारी एम०ए० का प्राविजनल प्रमाण-पत्र जिसमें भी रोल नं०-497 काटकर 314 बनाया गया, की छायाप्रति इलाहाबाद विश्व विद्यालय से सत्यापित कराकर एक सप्ताह में उपलब्ध कराने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया तथा तथा यह भी निर्देश दिया गया कि श्री मिश्र द्वारा प्रस्तुत बी०ए० के अंकपत्र व सार्टीफिकेट में नामांकन संख्या का उल्लेख नही है जबकि सहायक कुल सचिव ने श्री मिश्र की बी०ए० की अंकातलिका में नामांकन संख्या-B.B.8808 स्वमेव सत्यापित किया है, उसकी श्री पुनः पुष्टि करा ली जाए। सहायक उप शिक्षा निदेशक (विज्ञान) के पत्रांक-1 / 2007-08 दिनांक - 8-1-2008 द्वारा उक्त अभलेखों की पुष्टि हेतु सहायक कुल सचिव परीक्षा, इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय को पत्र लिखा गया, जिसके क्रम में सहायक कुल सचिव (परीक्षा) इलाहाबाद विश्विद्यालय मे अपने पत्रांक-सं०कु०प०/29/2008 दिनांक-11-1-2008 द्वारा इस कार्यालय को सूचित किया कि श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र पुत्र श्री एस०एन० मिश्र, बी०ए० 1978 अनुक्रमांक-1474 विश्व विद्यालय अभिलेखानुसार सही है तथा श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र पुत्र श्री एस०एन०मिश्र, एम०ए०, अंग्रेजी साहित्य 1980 अनुक्रमांक-314 विश्वविद्यालय अभिलेखानुसार असत्य एवं गलत है। यह भी सत्यापित किया कि विश्वविद्यालय अभिलेखानुसार नामांकन संख्या-B.B.8808 श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र पुत्र श्री रघुनाथ प्रसाद मिश्र को आवंटित है।

श्री जनार्दन राम, प्रधानाचार्य, बाबा लक्ष्मण दास द्वावा राष्ट्रीय इण्टर कालेज, बैरिया, बलिया द्वारा दिनांक-21-03-2002 को निर्गत श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र से सम्बन्धित शिक्षण अनुभव प्रमाण-पत्र, जो तत्कालीन जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, बलिया श्री राजेन्द्र प्रताप द्वारा प्रतिहस्ताक्षरित है, का सत्यापन दिनांक-13-12-2007 को श्री राजेन्द्र प्रताप वर्तमान जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, गाजीपुर द्वारा काराया गया कि अनुभव प्रमाण-पत्र पर उनका हस्ताक्षर नही है और यह उनके फर्जी हस्ताक्षर बनाये गये हैं।

माध्यमिक शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 के अध्याय-2 के विनयम-1 में दिये गये परिशिष्ट "क" के अनुसार किसी अशासकीय मान्यता प्राप्त उच्चतर माध्यमिक विद्यालय में प्रधानाध्यपक की नियुक्ति हेतु न्यूनतम अनिवार्य अर्हता प्रशिक्षित एम०ए० या एम०एस०सी० या एम०काम० या एम०एस०(कृषि) या इसके समकक्ष कोई स्नाकोत्तर अन्य उपाधि है तथा न्यूनतम आयु 30 वर्ष तथा कक्षा-9 से 12 तक में कम से कम चार वर्ष का शिक्षण अनुभव या विभाग द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त किसी जूनियर हाईस्कूल के प्रशिक्षित स्नातक प्रधानाध्यापक के रूप में कम से कम चार वर्ष का अनुभव, बशर्ते 30 वर्ष से कम आयु का न हो।

माध्यमिक शिक्षा अधिनियम द्वारा निर्धारित शैक्षिक व प्रशिक्षण अर्हता व अन्य शर्तो के अनुसार श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र द्वारा प्रस्तुत अभिलेखों का परीक्षण किया गया जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, गाजीपुर की सत्यापन आख्या के आधार पर इनका अनुभव प्रमाण-पत्र फर्जी है तथा इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय के सहायक कुल सचिव की सत्यापन आख्या के अनुसार इनका एम०ए० अंग्रेजी का अंक-पत्र असत्य एवं गलत है।

वर्णित स्थिति में उ०प्र० माध्यमिक शिक्षा सेवा चयन बोर्ड, इलाहाबाद द्वारा श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र का प्राधानाचार्य पद हेतु प्रश्नगत चयन अनुभव प्रमाण-पत्र फर्जी होने एवं एम०ए० का अंक-पत्र फर्जी होने के कारण विधि मान्य नही रह गया है. संस्था के प्रधानाचार्य के पद पर, निर्धारित अनुभव एवं अर्हता नही होने के कारण श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र के बने रहने का औचित्य नही रह गया है। प्रधानाचार्य के पद पर हुई श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र की नियुक्ति प्रभावहीन करते हुए अमान्य की जाती है। उ०प्र० माध्यमिक शिक्षा सेवा चयन बोर्ड, इलाहाबाद को श्री मिश्र का चयन निरस्त करने की संस्तुति की जाती है। जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक बलिया को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि संस्था प्रबन्ध-तन्त्र को तद्नुसार श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्र को कार्यभार से तत्काल मुक्त करने का आदेश निर्गत करें।

एतद्द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 03-04-2007 के क्रम में प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाता है।

5. The aforesaid findings were recorded by Director after considering the material produced by University before him. Only instructions were sent by the University to this Court and no affidavit of any official of the University was filed before this Court on the basis of which it was decided. The oral statement of the counsel of the University on the basis of instructions cannot override the findings recorded by the Director of Education (Secondary) in his order dated 22.01.2008. Therefore, it is clear that there is error apparent on the face of record on account of non-consideration of merits of the impugned order by this Court while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner and as held by the Apex Court in the case of Asharfi Devi (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner-opposite party, this reveiw application is maintainable. The Apex Court has held in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) as follows in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 :-

14. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagnnath (dead) by L.R.s & Ors., 1994 (1) SCC 1 : 1994 (1) RRR 253 (SC), the two Judges Bench of this Court held :

"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" - observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgement or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgement/decree - by the first Court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challegned in any Court even in collateral proceedings."

15. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (5) SCC 550 another two Judges Bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus :

"Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order."

6. In view of the above consideration, the review application is allowed.

7. The order dated 21.12.2011 passed in the above noted writ petition is reviewed. The writ petition shall be listed for fresh hearing before the appropriate Court after one month.

Order Date :- 01.08.2022

KS