JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Case called out. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition despite notice.

2. Heard Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for first, second, third and fifth respondent and learned standing counsel.

3. Pursuant to order dated 26 March 2021, the second and third respondents are present.

4. By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent-Assistant Director Basic, Gorakhpur Mandal Basti, with regard to payment of salary.

5. The facts briefly stated is that the petitioner came to be appointed Assistant Teacher in Pt. Dindayal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bitia, Belhar, District Sant Kabir Nagar, on 15 March 2016. The institution is in the grant-in-aid of the State. On 7 April 2017, salary of the petitioner was stopped on an allegation that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the strength of forged documents.

6. The third respondent-Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic Education), Sant Kabir Nagar, has filed affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the fourth respondent-Committee of Management of the Institution inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner came to be appointed on the approval granted by the fifth respondent-Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar.

7. It is urged that petitioner joined the post on 17 March 2016. On complaint being received that the petitioner has obtained appointment on forged documents, the second respondent vide communication dated 7 April 2017, directed the fifth respondent to enquire into the matter and pending enquiry the salary of the petitioner was stopped. In the meantime, a complaint being Case Crime No. 273 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, came to be lodged against petitioner, his father, the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari-Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh and the Manager of the Institution on 5 June 2018. The Investigating Officer verified the roll number of B.Sc.-III marksheet of the petitioner from the Mahatma Gandhi P.S. College, Gorakhpur. It was informed that the roll number noted on the marksheet submitted by the petitioner was allotted to one Tufail Ahmad, son of, Rahmat Ali. In other words, petitioner had submitted the mark-sheet (B.Sc.-III) of the same roll number. Further, the intermediate mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner against roll number 1132323 was also found to be a forged document.

8. It is alleged that father of the petitioner, a clerk, in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari had managed the forged documents to obtain appointment of the son. It is urged that father of the petitioner and the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari in connivance with the petitioner obtained forged documents pertaining to the educational qualification of the petitioner i.e. Intermediate and B.Sc.-III year, as well as, Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate. All documents relied upon by the petitioner and the copies of the original marksheets/certificates have been placed on record.

9. The T.E.T. certificate for the year 2011 submitted by the petitioner bears Roll No. 10040855 issued to a candidate belonging to backward category (OBC), wheres, the authorities have submitted copy of the original document, wherein, the said roll number was allotted to Kalpana Tripathi, belonging to general category, and she failed to qualify the T.E.T. examination. The T.E.T. certificate submitted by the petitioner bears the same roll number. In other words the document is a forged and manufactured document.

10. The petitioner has not filed any rebuttal to the aforementioned documents placed on record by the respondents.

11. Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others, 2017 (8) SCC 670, held that:

''Thus, where a benefit is secured by an individual - such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution - on the