Point of Law : It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing a writ petition. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Shri Bhup Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Tanay Hazari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Standing counsel for State-respondent no.1.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent no.3 is dispensed with.

3. This writ petition has been filed praying inter-alia the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby set aside the letter no. 8582-89/2021-22 dated 08.09.2021 passed by opposite party no.2/District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur because the opposite party no. 2 without investigating the matter seriously and also ignoring the material facts and documents available on record which was provided before him by the petitioner regarding the selection of opposite party no.3 on the post of Assistant Teacher fraudulently at Primary School Nonara, Block-Kadipur, Sultanpur on the basis of forged and fabricated documents likewise date of birth mentioned as 10.04.1983 in the High School Marksheet which was regularly passed out and another Marksheet of High School bearing date of birth is 20.03.1984 in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the concerned authority to terminate the service of the private opposite party no. 3 presently working as Assistant Teacher at Primary School Nonara, Block-Kadipur, Sultanpur on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in the interest of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3 namely Pradeep Kumar took admission in class 1st at Primary School Daulatpur, Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur and studied upto 5th class. His date of birth has been mentioned as 10.04.1983 in the school records. He studied from 6th to 10th class at Subhash Inter College, Paliya, Sultanpur and passed High School examination in the year 1999 and in T.C. of High School, his date of birth is mentioned as 10.4.1983.

5. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.3 studied from class 6th to 8th at Munna Misr Laghu Madhymic School, Misrauli, Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur and passed 8th class in the year 1997, but with fraudulent intention in order to reduce his age, he has mentioned his date of birth as 20.3.1984 in the school’s documents. Thereafter he has passed 9th and 10th class as private candidate in the year 2000 from Janta Inter College, Belhari, Sultanpur on the aforesaid date of birth and thereafter regularly passed 11th and 12th class in the year 2001-2002 from the aforesaid school on the same date of birth i.e. 20.3.1984. Further the respondent no. 3 took admission as regular student in I.T.I. course in the year 2000 to 2002 and simultaneously he was also pursuing studies as regular student of class 11th and 12th in the same year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is very surprising that how respondent no. 3 can attend classes simultaneously at two places , which is against the rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent no.3 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and wrong date of birth was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad and was regularly promoted and is presently working as Head Master, as such his appointment be cancelled and the salary paid to him be recovered by the State authorities.

7. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that letters dated 29.6.2021 and 21.11.2020 were sent by the petitioner mentioning each and every fraudulent activities of respondent no.3 with documentary evidence to the respondent No. 2, who decided the same exculpating the respondent no.3 without applying fair and legal mind in connivance with him with ulterior motives and the allegation levelled by the petitioner was ignored and no action was taken by the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari against the respondent No.3 and the finding w