Allahabad High Court
The Committee Of Management Jubilee ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:14919
Reserved - 22/01/2025
Delivered - 04/02/2025
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11437 of 2024
Petitioner :- The Committee Of Management Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nityodit Tripathi,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lakshman Tripathi,Shesh Kumar Srivastava,Sudhir Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Facts of present case are extracted from an order dated 06.09.2024 passed in present case whereby issue of maintainability was decided that writ petition was considered to be maintainable and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-
"12. Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case which are necessary for the better understanding of the case as to whether the writ petition filed before this Court is maintainable or not under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
13. There is a Sanskrit Degree College in the name of Jubilee Sanskrit College, Ballia. It is affiliated with Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and provisions of first Statute are applicable. The Institution is under grant in aid list of State Government and Payment of Salary Act, 1971 is applicable by virtue of Section 2(b) of the Act. Being a degree college, it is governed by the Act of 1973.
14. After retirement of one Baij Nath Pandey, who was the Principal of the College, in the year 2015, the post of Principal fell vacant. An advertisement was published in two newspapers on 16.07.2015. The fourth respondent applied and filled his application form on 23.07.2015. Along with the application documents including experience certificate issued by Principal of one Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Karnghanta, Varanasi dated 12.01.2015 was also annexed which reflects his appointment since July, 2004. The interview was held on 03.04.2016. The fourth respondent submitted another experience certificate issued by Principal, Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Karnghanta, Varanasi dated 23.07.2015 which reflects that he was appointed in month of July, 2010 by the Committee of Management and was teaching up till date on the post of Sahayak Vyakaran Pravakta. He joined the Institution on 15.06.2016. His probation period was from 15.06.2016 to 15.06.2017.
15. The Committee of Management of the Institution through correspondence dated 01.06.2017 sought verification of the experience certificate dated 23.07.2015. The Manager of Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Karnghanta, Varanasi on 03.07.2017 apprised that fourth respondent was never appointed in his College and experience certificate dated 23.07.2015 appears to be forged and fabricated. The Committee of Management sought clarification from fourth respondent on 13.05.2017. A reply was submitted on 11.07.2017 along with an affidavit stating that all the documents were submitted at the time of appointment and there was no criminal case pending against the fourth respondent except a criminal case registered under Section 107/116 of I.P.C. The period of probation was extended for another six months by Committee of Management on 16.07.2017. Thereafter, he submitted his certificates of educational qualifications along with experience certificate dated 23.07.2015 through letter dated 18.07.2017. It appears that a complaint was made in respect of the experience certificate of fourth respondent, pursuant to which the Committee of Management decided to conduct an inquiry. Notices were issued to fourth respondent seeking his reply in the matter. The inquiry report was submitted by Chairman on 04.02.2018 to Manager of the Institution. The Committee of Management proceeded to suspend the fourth respondent on 18.02.2018 and directed to hand over the charge to senior most teacher Mr. Siddharth Shanker Ojha. The Manager, thereafter, passed a consequential order on 19.02.2018 putting the fourth respondent under suspension. Thereafter, charge-sheet was served and the matter was placed before Vice Chancellor through letter dated 20.02.2018. An objection was filed to the said charge-sheet on 03.03.2018. On 11.05.2018, last opportunity opportunity was given to fourth respondent for submitting his explanation. On 07.06.2018, the appointment of fourth respondent as Principal was cancelled. The matter was placed before Vice Chancellor on 19.06.2018.
16. The order cancelling appointment was challenged by fourth respondent before this Court through Writ Petition No. 3813 of 2022. The writ Court on 27.04.2022 directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to take decision regarding termination of service of fourth respondent. The Vice Chancellor on 14.11.2022 approved the suspension as well as termination order of fourth respondent. Again, the same was challenged by fourth respondent through Writ-A No. 20283 of 2022. The writ Court on 13.12.2022 while disposing of the writ petition set aside the order passed by Vice Chancellor and remanded back the same to be decided again.
17. Post remand, the Vice Chancellor by order dated 16.04.2023 again approved the suspension and termination order. The fourth respondent again challenged the same through Writ Petition No. 9080 of 2023. The order was again quashed and remanded back to Vice Chancellor on 23.05.2023 for deciding afresh. Post remand, the Registrar of the University issued a letter on 25.07.2023 requiring all the parties to appear on the date of hearing which was fixed for 11.08.2023. The Committee of Management filed its reply on 11.08.2023.
18. The Vice Chancellor on 17.08.2023 passed an order reinstating fourth respondent. This order was challenged by the present petitioner through Writ-A No. 15912 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the fourth respondent took specific ground that writ petition was not maintainable in view of alternative remedy available under Section 68 of the Act of 1973. The writ Court dealt with the same and found the writ petition to be maintainable looking to the factual background of the case and allowed the writ petition on 01.12.2023 and set aside the order passed by Vice Chancellor on 17.08.2023 and remanded back the matter for consideration afresh.
19. The Vice Chancellor constituted a Three Member Committee on 29.02.2024. The Vice Chancellor on the report of inquiry committee passed the order impugned on 23.06.2024 for reinstating the fourth respondent and providing all the consequential benefits."
2. In said order, issue before this Court was also crystallized and relevant part thereof is mentioned below :-
"30. On the two occasions, the Vice Chancellor has failed to address the real issue as to whether the Principal was competent enough to issue such experience certificate being not an appointing authority. He was required to adjudicate whether an experience certificate could be issued by a Principal of an Institution or by the appointing authority.
31. The issue raised by Sri Ojha goes to the root of the matter which the Vice Chancellor has failed to address despite the repeated remand orders passed by this Court. The present writ petition cannot be thrown away on the ground of alternative remedy as has already been held by Apex Court that it is not an absolute bar and is maintainable under the guidelines laid down by Apex Court."
3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Advocate for petitioners has reiterated the submissions as referred in above order that Principal of an institution is not competent to issue an experience certificate and despite this Court has passed specific order in earlier round of litigation, the Vice Chancellor of respondent University has not dealt with said issue.
4. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that appointing authority is Committee of Management i.e. petitioner no.1 who has disputed the existence of said certificate and for that he has referred the documents annexed along with this writ petition i.e. a notary affidavit given by Management as well as communication from said institution i.e. Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Karnghanta, Varanasi that respondent-4 has never worked with said institution.
5. Learned Senior Advocate has further referred that in inquiry report, there is a reference that such experience certificate was a creation of fraud.
6. Per contra, S/Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondents - 3 and 4 have submitted that there are various reports in favour of said respondent that since Principal of said college has confirmed about experience certificate issued to respondent-4, therefore, there was no dispute left.
7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
8. As referred above, this Court in the initial round of litigation i.e. a judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed in Writ A No. 1592 of 2023 wherein impugned order therein was set aside and matter was remitted back to pass a fresh order with a specific observation/direction that issue of experience certificate issued by Officiating Principal was genuine or not and that has to be decided on basis of other documents or statement i.e. not only on basis of statement given by Officiating Principal who has issued such certificate. However, in impugned order, said consideration is absolutely missing and for reference, relevant part of impugned order under heading of 'समीक्षा / निर्णय' is quoted below :-
"समीक्षा / निर्णय
श्री राकेश कुमार त्रिपाठी, प्राचार्य, जुबली संस्कृत कालेज, बलिया के सम्बन्ध में जाँच समिति द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी आख्या के अनुसार श्री राकेश कुमार त्रिपाठी, प्राचार्य का अनुभव प्रमाण पत्र तथ्यपरक एवं समुचित पाया गया। साथ ही प्रबन्धक द्वारा श्री राकेश कुमार त्रिपाठी के निलम्बन हेतु की गयी कार्यवाही युक्तियुक्त नहीं पायी गयी। इस आधार पर श्री राकेश कुमार त्रिपाठी की नियुक्ति समुचित है एवं इनका निलम्बन / सेवा समाप्ति की कार्यवाही अनियमित है।
अतः प्रबन्धक द्वारा श्री राकेश कुमार त्रिपाठी की सेवा के विरुद्ध की गयी शिकायत एवं निलम्बन आदेश को निरस्त किया जाता है। साथ ही प्रवन्धक, जुमली संस्कृत कालेज, बलिया को यह निर्देश प्रदान किया जाता है कि श्री राकेश कुमार त्रिपाठी के निलम्बनध्सेवा समाप्ति को तत्काल समाप्त करें एवं जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, बलिया उक्त अवधि के वेतनादि भुगतान सुनिश्चित करें।
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित याचिका संख्या-15912/2023 जुबली संस्कृत कालेज, बलिया-बनाम-स्टेट ऑफ यू०पी० व अन्य में पारित आदेश दिनांक 01.12.2023 के समादर में प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाता है।"
9. Impugned order is, therefore, not legally justified since there is no specific finding on the issue crystalized in earlier round of litigation and since there is no useful purpose to remit the matter back for fresh consideration, the Court proceeds to consider whether said certificate could be considered as genuine or not only on basis of statement of Principal i.e. Officiating Principal which has been specifically contradicted by Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Karnghanta, Varanasi.
10. In regard to an issue whether Principal has power to issue an experience certificate or the Committee of Management has power to issue it being an Appointing Authority, no material has been put by either petitioners or respondent-4 that Committee of Management was only authority to issue experience certificate. In normal way of working of school, it is the Principal who could be in a best position to ascertain whether the teacher has worked properly or not.
11. Court is of considered view that Committee of Management itself on its own will not be in a position to issue experience certificate and for that they have to take inputs from Principal, though in normal circumstances, if the Committee of Management or Principal has issued certificate, the same may be considered to be valid experience certificate. Even there are documents filed on behalf of respondent-4 that experience certificate are normally issued by Principal. However, in present case, there is a dispute since the Committee of Management of concerned college has disputed the experience certificate.
12. In the impugned order, only basis of justify experience certificate issued by Officiating Principal was that said Principal has verified the same, however, as referred above, the Committee of Management of said institution has disputed it.
13. Court is of considered view that Principal is also a competent to issue such certificate since no provision of law or Statute is brought on record that Principal is barred to issue such certificate only on a ground that Committee of Management is the Appointing Authority who does not bar the Principal to issue said certificate, however, it must be genuine. The dispute between Committee of Management and Principal of concerned college appears to be a ground on which there are contrary reports. The institute viz. Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Karnghanta, Varanasi is not a party before this Court, therefore, their stand is not before this Court. Only there are documents from Committee of Management of concerned college that they have denied the experience certificate which would not be sufficient that respondent-4 has never worked in said institution.
14. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is of considered view that only on basis of letter of Committee of Management stating that experience certificate was a forged document would not be sufficient to discard said certificate as well as that there is no material before this Court that Principal was barred to issue such certificate.
15. Accordingly, Court is of considered view that there is no material before this Court to put doubt on experience certificate issued in favour of respondent-4, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of. However, in case there is other substantial material, Committee of Management of concerned college will be at liberty to conduct an inquiry.
Order Date :- February 04, 2025
Sinha_N.
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
