Allahabad High Court
Harendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment Reserved on : 19.09.2022
Judgment Delivered on : 09.01.2023
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11987 of 2020
Petitioner :- Harendra Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijit Saxena,Rahul Sharma,Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Karma Singh Yadav,Suresh Kumar Saroj
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Suresh Kumar Saroj, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.4.
2. The writ petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs.
(i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure -15) passed by the respondent no.3.
(ia) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure-12) passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to summon the file and hold due inquiry for passing the appropriate order with regard to the claim of the petitioner for salary.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order of direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner.
3. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Adarsh Shiksha Bal Vihar Laghu Madhayamik Vidyalaya, Bakhaira, District Sant Kabir Nagar on 13.06.2016 and joined the institution in question on 27.06.2016. The institution in question is a recognized aided institution and managed by a duly constituted Committee of Management. The post of Clerk was filled up after seeking permission from the District Basic Education Officer on 14.03.2016, advertisement was issued in two newspapers. The selection proceedings were sent by the Committee of Management and the same was approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, by his order dated 28.05.2016 filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Despite the appointment being approved the salary was not being paid to the petitioner and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by means of Writ (A) No.10775 of 2019, which writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the claim of the petitioner. The claim was ultimately decided by the District Basic Education Officer, vide order dated 13.11.2019 and was rejected holding that the appointment of the petitioner was forged inasmuch as the approval order dated 28.05.2016 bears the signature of Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, the then District Basic Education Officer Sant Kabir Nagar, and the said Mahendra Pratap Singh had already been relieved of the charge of District Basic Education Officer on 16.06.2016 and joined as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur, and as such there was no occasion for him to have passed the approval order. Besides the approval order was sent to Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh posted as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur and he vide his communication dated 14.10.2016 categorically denied his signatures on the approval order dated 28.05.2016.
4. It is next contended that the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education (Camp) Nishatganj, Lucknow, with a prayer for fresh, impartial and fair enquiry. The representation of the petitioner found favour with the Deputy Director of Education (Camp) Nishatganj, Lucknow. Consequently, vide order dated 09.12.2019 the order of the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, was set aside and directions were issued to decide the claim afresh as per law. It is contended that the District Basic Education Officer without following the directions of the Deputy Director of Education (Camp) Nishatganj, Lucknow, in the order dated 09.12.2019 has proceeded to pass the order dated 20.02.2020, whereby it has been found that the approval order dated 28.15.2016 of the petitioner is forged and the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, under whose signatures the approval order has been issued has denied his signatures on the approval order. It has thus been concluded that the petitioner has obtained appointment illegally and is not entitled for payment of salary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the order is in the teeth of the direction of the order of the Deputy Director of Education (Camp) Nishatganj, Lucknow, dated 09.12.2019, whereby the earlier order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sant Kabir Nagar dated 13.11.2019 was set aside. It is also contended that till the stage of selection there is no dispute once the petitioner stands selected and papers stood forwarded for approval, it was incumbent, at the level of the Basic Education Officer to have passed some orders on the documents forwarded. If the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari was not available then the officer who had assumed charge in place of the outgoing Basic Shiksha Adhikari ought to have passed orders approving the appointment of the petitioner. It is thus prayed that the writ petition is liable to be allowed after setting aside the impugned orders.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents resisting the writ petition submits that the approval order of the petitioner has been found to be forged and once that is so the impugned orders are just and proper and no indulgence is required by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the record that Court finds that the approval order dated 28.05.2016 in respect of the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk in the institution in question having been found forged inasmuch as the signatures appearing in the approved order has been established to be forged as the officer had already been released from the charge of Basic Shiksha Adhikari much prior to the date appearing in the approval order and on query from the officer concerned it has been verified that the signature is not that of the officer whose name appears on the approval order.
8. In such view of the matter there is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 09.01.2023
pks
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
