Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Gajendra Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ A No.11722 of 2021
Decided on : 05-03-2022
U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 - Assailed Order – Termination from Service - Appointed as Assistant Teachers in Government - Assailed order - Petitioner is that State Government by order directed to constitute a medical board to reexamine the candidates who had done Special B.T.C. Training Course under handicapped quota - Order was challenged by one and others by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by this Court - Against said order Special Appeal Defective was filed which was allowed by this Court by judgment limiting inquiry to physical verification of disability certificate and after that if authorities conclude that candidate has not been genuinely issued a certificate of disability or otherwise or that he does not suffer from any disability so certified which entitles him to such certificate in that event candidate can be subjected to fresh medical test and not otherwise - In view of the admitted fact that the nature of disability which the petitioner suffered is temporary, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right) and Full Participation Act 1995 – Para 35.
Finding of the Court:
A perusal of disability certificate issued by office of Chief Medical Officer Banda reveals that said certificate mentioned disability but it does not mention nature of disability whether it is permanent or temporary - When on inquiry it was found to be a forged certificate a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner specifying charge against him that disability certificate of petitioner is forged and burden was upon petitioner to prove by filing material evidence in response to show cause notice that said disability certificate is genuine which he utterly failed to do - After noticing judgment of Apex Court cause notice was issued to petitioner and petitioner submitted a reply which was noted by authority in its order but reply of petitioner does not disclose that he has filed any evidence that his disability is permanent in nature and his disability certificate is genuine (Para 33,34).
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Education/Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Aligarh by which services of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. The brief facts of the case are that under a policy of State Government, it has decided to impart six months Special B.T.C. Training Course for the year 2007-08 to those candidates who possess B.Ed. qualification so that they may be appointed as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools. The petitioner states that he is B.A., B.Ed. and as such he has applied for the same under the handicapped quota. The petitioner was selected for Special B.T.C. Training Course, and after successful completion of the B.T.C. Training Course, he was appointed by letter dated 08.02.2009 issued by District Basic Education Officer, Aligarh.
4. Further case of the petitioner is that the State Government by order dated 03.11.2009 directed to constitute a medical board to reexamine the candidates, who had done Special B.T.C. Training Course under handicapped quota. The order dated 03.11.2009 was challenged by one Ravindra Kumar Sharma and others by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by this Court. Against the said order, Special Appeal Defective No.811 of 2010 was filed which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 09.09.2010 limiting the inquiry to physical verification of disability certificate, and after that, if the authorities conclude that the candidate has not been genuinely issued a certificate of disability or otherwise, or that he does not suffer from any disability so certified which entitles him to such certificate, in that event the candidate can be subjected to fresh medical test and not otherwise.
5. The aforesaid order dated 09.09.2010 passed by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.811 of 2010 was challenged by the State Government in S.L.P. (C) No.8880 of 2011 which was allowed by the Apex Court by judgment dated 03.02.2016.
6. It appears that under a Government Order, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.09.2010 calling upon him to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated for obtaining an appointment based on a forged disability certificate. According to petitioner, he has submitted a reply to the said show-cause notice stating therein that in the case of similarly situated candidates namely Sandhya Sharma and others, who preferred writ petition bearing Service Single No.7386 of 2010 against the order of termination, this Court stayed the order of termination of Sandhya Sharma and others by order dated 22.10.2010. Accordingly, he prayed for parity of the said interim order. However, the service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 25.10.2010.
7. The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.10.2010 by means of Writ-A No.42815 of 2012. It appears that after the judgment of Apex Court dated 03.02.2016, a show-cause notice dated 23.06.2016 was issued by the Principal (DIET) to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that he has furnished a reply to the said show-cause notice, but the Court did not find any evidence on record that the so-called reply has been served upon respondents. However, this Court by judgment dated 27.01.2020 directed the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the final decision taken in respect of his candidature. The Court rejected the submission of counsel for the petitioner that a fresh medical examination of the petitioner be undertaken.
8. Pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by this Court, a show-cause notice dated 30.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner, and thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice.
9. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education/Principal, District Education, and Trainin
Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where it is established that appointment is obtained by fraud, cannot allow fraud to perpetuate by accepting a plea of a person t....
Employment obtained through fraudulent documentation does not require adherence to formal disciplinary procedures, as fraud vitiates employment.
Fraud vitiates all proceedings; employment obtained through fraudulent means does not require adherence to procedural protections under disciplinary rules.
Fraudulent appointments are void ab initio, and individuals securing employment through deceit cannot claim protections under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Termination of service without a proper inquiry violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution, emphasizing the necessity of due process in employment matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
