Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Brigraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. On 3.10.2017, this writ petition was heard at length and the following order was passed:

“Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neeraj Shukla for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as assistant teacher in the respondent No. 5 institution since beginning. She has no B.T.C. training certificate. By letter No. 3188- 89/97-98 dated 31.12.1997, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, granted exemption to the petitioner from the requirement of B.T.C. training in terms of G.O.No. 860/15(13)/97-1499/77 dated 15.5.1997.The petitioner had completed five years of service as on 13.4.1997.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, an order being letter No. 7379-82/98-99 dated 24.12.1997, was passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, granting exemption to the petitioner from B.T.C. training. Thereafter, an advertisement dated 23.7.1999 was issued by the Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur to fill up two posts of assistant teacher. The petitioner was selected in the said selection and an order dated 6.10.1999 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer directing to issue appointment letter. In compliance to the said order, the Manager of the institution issued an appointment letter dated 16.10.1999 to the petitioner and since then the services of the petitioner stood regularised. The institution in question was included in grant-in-aid list in 2006-07 session and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the MR at Serial No. 5, which was forwarded to the Government, but without any reason the authorities stopped payment of salary to the petitioner. No heed was paid by the authorities despite several representations and as such the petitioner filed Writ-A No. 55040 of 2010, which was disposed of by order dated 8.9.2010.

It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 8.9.2010, the petitioner filed a representation which was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 on the ground that the exemption granted by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 31.12.1997, does not find mention in the despatch register and as such it is forged. Such an inference drawn by the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as merely for the reason that the said letter does not find mention in the despatch register, it cannot be said to be forged.

Reliance in this regard has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of this Court dated 7.3.2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41838 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others), Om Prakash v. District Inspector of Schools, Badaun and another, 1982 UPLBEC 232 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 10 SCC 282.

Learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, submits that the exemption letter dated 31.12.1997 bears an alleged despatch number which does not find mention in the despatch register. This shows that no such letter was ever issued by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi to the petitioner. Thus, this letter is a forged letter and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the forged letter was ab-initio void. That apart, there is no statutory provision either relaxing necessary requirement of B.T.C. training certificate or empowering any authority to grant any such relaxation. There are some