Harishankar Singh Safariwala vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4693 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3546 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Harishankar Singh Safariwala
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Second. Edu. Civil Secrtt. Lko And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Vivek Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

Petitioner is the husband of Late Smt. Asha Singh Safriwala. It is claimed by the petitioner, her husband, that his wife had applied for selection and appointment as Principal in pursuance to Advertisement issued by the Board in 2008. The selection was held in 2011. Another person was placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel of selected candidates sent by the Board wherein the petitioner's wife was placed at Serial No. 2. On inquiry it was found that person at Serial No. 1 did not have genuine educational testimonials. Accordingly, his claim was denied. However, the said person made a complaint that even the petitioner's wife which was placed at Serial No. 2, her educational testimonials were fabricated and false. This led to a writ petition being filed bearing No. 2966 (S/S) of 2011 by the petitioner's wife and others which was decided on 17.07.2012 in the following terms:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Satish, District Inspector of Schools, Ghorakhpur, who is present in Court.

2. Smt. Asha Singh Safriwala and Smt. Kiran Tripathi have approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing selection of respondent no.3 finalized vide selection list dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure-1). Selection was made by respondent no.2 i.e. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad. Further prayer has been made in the petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the selection list dated 26.4.2011.

3. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were eligible for selection as Principal of Sahab Deen Sita Ram Balika Inter College, Faizabad and, therefore, compete for the said post along with respondent no.3.

4. Essentially, the allegation is that respondent no.3 relied on forged and fabricated documents to claim the post, which was given for malafide reason under influence of influential person to respondent no.3.

5. After selection, the petitioner no.1 was placed at serial no.2 in the selection list and petitioner no.2 was placed at serial no.3 in the select list and, therefore in case the selection of respondent no.3 is quashed or is held illegal, the petitioner no.1 would have the first claim to appointment. Likewise if petitioner no.1 does not join, petitioner no.2 would have the right to appointment.

6. Vide order dated 12.4.2012 this Court, while assigning reasons, passed detailed order. Operative part reads as under:

" In this view of the matter, District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur shall hold an enquiry and verify the records of the Naval's National Academy, Phase-IV, Rapti Nagar, Gorakhpur and on the basis of record submit a report as to whether opposite party no. 3 was rightly issued the experience certificate dated 19.12.2008 or not. The District Inspector of Schools shall also enquire into the factual position of the entire matter.

The Manager of the Naval's National Academy, Phase-IV, Rapti Nagar, Gorakhpur is directed to produce all the relevant records as and when called for by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur in this regard. The petitioner as well as opposite party no. 3 shall also be permitted to make their statements before the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur.

The District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur would be at liberty to call any other person to whom he feels necessary in this regard. The enquiry shall be held by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur within a period of one month and the report in this regard shall be produced before this Court on the next date of listing.

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur for necessary compliance.

List this case on 14.5.2012.

Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the Management of the institution."

7. An application has been filed for placing on record report of District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur in compliance of orders dated 12.4.2012 and 28.5.2012.

8. As per the conclusion drawn, after enquiry, the experience certificate furnished by respondent no.3 was found not in accordance with the factual position. Experience certificate was furnished purportedly from affiliated school for the period from 1995 to 2005 whereas the school where the respondent no.3 served, got affiliated with C.B.S.C. Board in the year 2003 only.

9. In above circumstances, even if, the best case of respondent no.3 is considered, the experience would be confined for the period from 2003 to 2005 i.e. about two years and the merit re-considered accordingly. It is also required to be considered that false document has been filed, indicating experience from 1995 till 2005.

9. Be that as it may, now that enquiry has been conducted and report has been furnished, respondent no.2 is directed to take note of the enquiry report and pass appropriate order, as required by law, after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent no.3. Needful be done within a period of four weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of."

In pursuance to the aforesaid as claimed by the petitioner, her husband, an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the experience certificate of Smt. Mamta Nishad who was placed Serial No. 1, was false. As regards the education qualification/ experience of the petitioner's wife Smt. Asha Singh Safriwala a report was being called from Ram Manohar Lohia Awath Vishwavidyalay, Faizabad. The said report was not received. Nevertheless, it was found that in the report dated 16.02.2013 that for the reasons mentioned therein subject to verification of her educational testimonials from the said University she would be placed at Serial No. 1. The University vide its order dated 15.03.2018 verified the educational testimonials/ degree of the petitioner's wife as being genuine and rejected the complaint. However, in the interregnum, sometimes in 2015 the petitioner's wife retired. Obviously no person could have been appointed as Principal after her retirement. Unfortunately, she died in 2017 on account of cancer. During the period 2013-15 she did not approach the Court, a fact which was admitted by the petitioner's counsel.

We are now in 2022. Her husband i.e. the petitioner has come to Court seeking the following relief:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to implement the order dated 12.02.2013 by considering the decision dated 15.03.2018 as well as 10.06.2020 contained as annexure no. 2 & 3 to this writ petition by which the post graduate degree Hindi subject of petitioner's wife was found genuine and declared to her as principal of Sahabdeen Ram Sitaram Balika Inter College Faizabad District Ayodhya w.e.f. 26.04.2011 as when the result of the principal was announced after completion of selection process in furtherance of advertisement no. 02/2018 Ayodhya region Ayodhya.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, specifically opposite party no. 5 to provide all consequential service benefit to the petitioner's wife by assuming the petitioner's wife as principal of the institution w.e.f. 26.04.2011 or from the date as when Smt. Mamta Nishad was allowed to join her service in the D.I.O.S. Office, Ayodhya (the then Faizabad) in pursuance of the decision dated 16.02.2013 as when the merit list was modified by placing the petitioner's wife at Sl.NO.1 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition and may also be paid the salary and arrears of the petitioner's wife as and when the same fall due for the post of Principal of the institution within a stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

The relief is in effect to that his wife should be treated as appointed as regular Principal of opposite party no. 5- institution w.e.f. 26.04.2011 or from the date when Smt. Mamta Nishad was allowed to join her service in the D.I.O.S. Office in pursuance of the decision dated 16.02.2013 and should be paid arrears of salary etc. with all consequential benefits.

With utmost respect this relief can not granted to the petitioner for the reason, firstly, whatever may have been cause which obviously was pendency of the inquiry in pursuance to the judgment of this Court dated 17.07.2012 and the verification of testimonials of petitioner's wife, she could not be appointed as Principal before she attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. Thereafter, she died in 2017. If at all, it was for the petitioner's wife to have come to Court between the period 2012-15 or even thereafter, if permissible till her death. She did not do so.

Now, the husband can not come to Court saying that she should be assumed as having been appointed as regular Principal and she should be paid the salary which would have been payable to her. This is not a claim which survives. The writ petition is misconceived.

As regards the contention of petitioner's counsel that salary for the period she has officiated as Principal is concerned, that has not been specifically prayed for in this writ petition. If there is any claim in this regard and the petitioner has locus he may maintain a separate writ petition for the same but this writ petition at this stage is not acceptable. The petitioner, if he has locus, can claim compensation against the complainant who created such a situation which led to non appointment of petitioner's wife or seek such other relief against the such person who delayed the matter on account of which appointment letter could not be issued to her. There is no way that the reliefs claimed herein can be granted to the petitioner.

It is accordingly dismissed.

.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 31.5.2022

R.K.P.