Allahabad High Court
Maya And Another vs State Of Up And 5 Others on 1 April, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:54699-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 309 of 2024
Appellant :- Maya And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4-Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj through its Secretary.
2. Present special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 13.2.2024 passed in Writ-A No.15871 of 2019 (Divya Agrahari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.). By the judgment and order dated 13.2.2024, a Bunch of Writ Petitions with leading Writ-A No.15229 of 2019 (Urvashi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) had been dismissed with imposition of cost of Rs.5000/- on each of the petitioners.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties have placed the judgment and order dated 20.3.2024 passed in Special Appeal No.272 of 2014. In the said special appeal, the same impugned order dated 13.2.2024 passed by learned Single Judge was under challenge. For ready reference, the order dated 20.3.2024 is reproduced as under:-
"1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions with leading Writ-A No.15922 of 2019, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants-petitioners are dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- upon each of the writ petitioners.
2. Appellants-petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated by the State for appointment of 68500 Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by the Basic Education Department. It appears that certain allegations surfaced regarding selection and appointment of teachers. A fact finding enquiry committee examined the allegations and found that marks were shown higher for 353 candidates over and above the marks obtained in the examination. Out of these persons, it got revealed that 53 persons had actually secured marks below the cut-off in their respective category but on account of incorrect depiction of higher marks they were issued appointment. Based upon such enquiry report and perusal of records, the appointment orders issued to these 53 persons have been cancelled. Aggrieved by cancellation of their appointment, appellants-petitioners and other persons approached this Court by filing writ petitions, which are dismissed by learned Single Judge vide the judgment under challenge.
3. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Umesh Prasad Singh for the appellants-petitioners submits that the conclusion drawn by the State authorities that the appellants-petitioners obtained marks below the cut-off is factually incorrect. It is also stated that there are no manipulation attributed or established against the appellants-petitioners and investigation pursuant to F.I.R. lodged in the matter is going on, therefore, the direction issued by the Writ Court in imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- upon each of the writ petitioners is unwarranted. Submission is that unless specific role of appellants-petitioners surfaces in the criminal proceedings, no adverse remark is liable to be made against the appellants-petitioners as it would jeopardize their career. It is also urged that appellants-petitioners otherwise are unemployed persons and the possibility of their securing employment elsewhere would be ruined on account of adverse observations made against the appellants-petitioners.
4. Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Basic Shiksha Parishad opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants-petitioners and points out that original records have been examined and it was found that the marks secured by all the writ petitioners were below the cut-off in their respective category. It is argued that since the appellants-petitioners were the beneficiary of fraud as such the cost imposed by learned Single Judge upon the appellants-petitioners merits no interference.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the records of writ petitions.
6. It transpires that the State authorities have conducted detailed factual enquiry and upon perusal of original answer sheets of each of these 53 candidates it has been found that their marks were below the cut-off, in their respective category, but in the result declared these persons were wrongly shown to be qualified and appointment letters were issued to them. This fact has also been noticed by learned Single Judge.
7. Though various arguments are advanced on behalf of the appellants-petitioners but there is no serious challenge to the factual finding that none of these 53 persons had secured marks above the cut-off in their respective category. Once that be the position, we find no error in the view taken by learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petitions insofar as the appointments offered to the appellants-petitioners were cancelled. The Parishad/State would be clearly justified in cancelling appointments wrongly offered to the appellants-petitioners once it is found that their marks were below the cut-off in respective category.
8. From the records it further appears that manipulation was made in preparation of result pursuant to which appointment letters were issued to the appellants-petitioners. The Government Order dated 05.10.2018 clearly records that various supervisory lapses had taken place and the role of agency, which had conducted the examination, was also questioned. In this govt. order, however, no finding is returned against the present appellants-petitioners nor is it anywhere suggested that the present appellants-petitioners were responsible for the manipulation undertaken in preparation of result. At best suspicion may arise against them, as they are the obvious beneficiary, but it cannot form the basis for holding them guilty of manipulation.
9. We are informed that pursuant to interim order passed by the Writ Court an F.I.R. is already lodged in the matter and investigation is going on. It is always open for the State authorities to conduct investigation pursuant to such FIR and take the investigation to its logical end. However, till such time as specific implication of any of the appellants surfaces in the criminal proceedings or in an administrative enquiry, no adverse observation ought to be made against the appellants-petitioners nor can it be presumed that the petitioners are guilty of manipulation. The observations and findings of the Writ Court against the appellants-petitioners, in the judgment under challenge, appears to be without any basis at this stage of the proceedings and are, accordingly, expunged. For the same reasons, we also hold that imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- upon each of the appellants-petitioners is not warranted and the direction in that regard is modified.
10. Subject to the above modification made in the impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2024, this special appeal is consigned to records."
4. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that present special appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 20.3.2024.
5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent no.4 have no objection, if the present special appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 20.3.2024.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, present special appeal is also disposed of in terms of judgment and order dated 20.3.2024.
Order Date :- 1.4.2024
SP/
