Allahabad High Court
Vikram Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 13 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20229
Reserved on : 06.02.2025
Delivered on : 13.02.2025
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48278 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vikram Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
And
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41363 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ram Roop Shukla And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Sarkar,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Arun Kumar Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The petitioners in both writ petitions (four in number)) are working as class IV employee in respondent institution. It is the case of petitioners that a due process was initiated to fill up the class IV post and accordingly, a prior permission was sought and was granted also. Thereafter, an advertisement was published and 20 candidates including petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee and petitioners were got selected and thereafter their appointments were approved by the then DIOS, Sonbhadra by an order dated 18.05.2010.
2. It is further case of petitioners that despite their approval of their appointment, their salary was not paid, therefore, they approached the concerned DIOS who passed a strict direction to Principal of concerned Inter college for payment of salary to them on 30.06.2016.
3. The petitioner further claimed that without putting them on notice, an ex-parte inquiry was conducted on basis of a complaint, the earlier order to grant salary dated 30.06.2016 was withdrawn by a subsequent order dated 05.08.2017, which is impugned in above captioned writ petition. The relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter :-
"आदेश
उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों व पत्रावली में संलग्न पत्रजातों के अवलोकन में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा की गयी शिकायत के क्रम में जंग बहादुर सिंह इं०का० शाहगंज सोनभद्र में नियुक्त 04 परिचारक पुनीत सिंह यादव, सनी सिंह, रामरूप शुक्ल, व विक्रम कुमार हैं यह सभी नियुक्तियां तत्कालीन प्रधानाचार्य श्री राजेन्द्र प्रसाद त्रिपाठी के स्कैन किये गये हस्ताक्षर से किये गये है जैसा कि उन्होंने स्वयं भी लिखित रूप से दिया है तथा कार्यालय के जो पत्र उल्लेख किये गये है, वह भी डिस्पैच पंजिका में कूटरचित करके डिस्पैच नम्बर जो दूसरे के नाम का था, बाद में खाली स्थान पर बढाया गया है। तत्कालीन जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक के पत्रांक /मा०/3442-3445/2016-17 दिनांक 30.06.2016 द्वारा प्रबन्धक/प्रधानाचार्य, जंग बहादुर सिंह इं०का० शाहगंज, सोनभद्र को पुनीत सिंह व अऩ्य परिचारकों के वेतन भुगतान की कार्यवाही उनके द्वारा विद्यालय में किये गये कार्यभार ग्रहण की तिथि से दिया गया है, को निरस्त किया जाता है।"
4. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in both writ petitions submitted that no notice was issued to petitioners before the impugned order was passed.
5. The impugned order was passed after many years i.e. of about seven years and in between, no complaint was made. Their appointments were approved by the then DIOS and there is no allegation that approval orders were forged.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that allegation that signature of Principal was scanned does not survive since on bare perusal of original appointment letters which are placed during hearing, the signatures were appeared to be original and made by pen and was not a scanned image and no expert opinion was taken that signature was forged and only because the then Principal has denied without any further proof, appointment letter could not be considered as an forged document.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that so far as overwriting in dispatch register at the office of DIOS was concerned, it would not be a sufficient ground to reject all the other documents such as appointment was made against substantive vacancy and number of candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and consideration by the DIOS when order of approval was granted.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State referred the copies of dispatch register that there were overwriting and dispatch numbers indicate that the letters were issued for different colleges.
9. He further submitted that the then Principal has categorically denied his signatures on letters issued on his behalf for the purpose of recruitment. No post was exist when alleged requisition was sent as well as that 'fraud vitiates every solemn act'.
10. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
11. In the present case, the first factor which creates a doubt was that all petitioners were earlier working in institution as class IV employee and in alleged recruitment, where 20 candidates have participated, only the petitioners were got selected.
12. The proceeding of Selection Committee was placed on record, wherein the 4 petitioners before this Court got 67, 68, 69 and 70 marks, whereas remaining 16 candidates got numbers ranging between 47 to 55. The numbers could be given differently, however, the above numbers would become relevant on basis of other events which are considered on basis of the records in the later part of judgment.
13. It appears that all requisite procedure for selection was followed i.e. a requisition was approved and an advertisement was published, candidates appeared before the Selection Committee. Thereafter appointments were made which were later on approved also, however, the facts as mentioned in impugned order appears to be very serious that the then Principal who alleged to be submitted a requisition under his signature has disputed his signature as well as a specific assertion was taken that no post of class IV was available, therefore, no recruitment process could have initiated.
14. It is true that signatures appear to be made by ink and it is not a case of scanned signature but there is a categorical statement of the then Principal that he has not put his signature on documents, which could be ignored specifically due to manner of selection.
15. The aforesaid two factors are become relevant since there are certain further allegations which also appears to be very substantive that an overwriting was made in the dispatch documents at the office of DIOS to match the numbers mentioned in the register which are visible also. The continuity of serial was also breached, therefore, it could not be held that reasons assigned in the impugned order have no substance.
16. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that at belated stage, such appointments could not be revisited, has no force due to that in present case, the inquiry was concluded within a short period of seven years, wherein a judgment cited by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in the matter of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and 2 others, 2024 INSC 1034, the doubt was created after very substantial period i.e. after more than two decades, therefore, the argument of interference after seven years, being a long time has no force.
17. The other argument of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners is that no opportunity was granted to them and impugned order was passed ex-parte, however, this argument has also no force as the petitioners are granted full liberty to present their case before this Court and since the grounds mentioned in impugned order were based on document which are on record. Once this Court has considered their case in entirety, said argument has no force.
18. I have perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition and counter affidavit and of opinion that once Principal himself has denied his signature and there is no document that post were available at relevant time and further that there are overwriting in dispatch register and above all that only petitioners were selected and other 16 candidates were not selected as well as that they were granted numbers ranging from 67 to 70, whereas other 16 candidates got less than 55 marks, therefore, such difference of marks on face of it also makes the entire process very doubtful. The selection process was very unfair.
19. The impugned order to contents very specific reasons and as discussed above that the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court that reasons assigned were perverse or without any basis, therefore, there is no reason to cause interference with impugned order and accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.02.2025
P. Pandey
