In cases of fraudulent appointments, the appointment orders are non-est in the eyes of the law, and no enquiry is required before terminating the services.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed this Civil Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2001 passerby learned Sub Judge (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) as upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Appellate Court), vide its judgment and decree dated 30th of June 2003. Vide the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as upheld by the learned 1st Appellate Court, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that she was appointed as a teacher in the Education Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in the pay scale of Rs.900-1830 in terms of order No.1368-1493 dated 08.05.1989 issued by the District Education Officer. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that initially she was appointed in Block Kangan where she remained posted till 1991 whereafter she was transferred to Zone Batamaloo and she served in Government School, Amirakadal, Srinagar. Vide order No.380DSEK of 1996 dated 03.12.1996, she was transferred from District Srinagar to District Budgam. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was deputed to undergo the training course in the College of Education and was relieved by Zonal Education Officer, Budgam.

3. On 10th of February 1998, the Chief Education Officer, Srinagar, issued a notice to the plaintiff asking her to produce her appointment order and qualification certificates. This was done by the said officer under the directions of the Administrative Department. The plaintiff is stated to have caused her appearance and explained her position before the Chief Education Officer by informing him that the original records of her appointment are lying with the department. Thereafter vide order No.524 dated 03.04.1998, issued by Director School Education, Kashmir, Srinagar, the services of the plaintiff were terminated.

4. Initially, the plaintiff challenged the notice of show cause that was issued to her, by way of the suit which is subject matter of the present appeal but it appears that afterwards she came to know about the termination of her services. She sought amendment of the plaint and, accordingly, the plaint was amended. Vide the amended plaint, the plaintiff challenged the order of her termination. In the amended plaint, the plaintiff sought a decree of declaration declaring the impugned order of termination as null and void. A consequential relief of injunction directing the defendants to release all service benefits in her favour was also sought. The main ground for challenging the order of termination that was raised by the plaintiff in her suit was that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to her and without holding any enquiry.

5. The respondent Education Department initially contested the suit by filing its written statement. In their written statement, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff has managed fraudulent entry in the department, inasmuch as there is no appointment order issued by the defendant Department in her favour. It was also contended that the name of the plaintiff does not figure in any of the selection lists prepared by the recruiting agencies during the relevant period. Thus, according to the defendants, the appointment of the plaintiff is fraudulent and bogus which is non-est in the eyes of law.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff was duly appointed as a teacher in the Education Department and has rendered here service in the department? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has manager her appointment as teacher in the Education Department by fraudulent means and as such was rightly terminated from the services? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any protection under Civil Service Rules which govern the state employees? OP