JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel who appears for the contesting respondent the Basic Education Officer.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school pursuant to an order passed by the Basic Education Officer, Basti on 18 November 1999. That order stands appended to the writ petition as Annexure-2. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 27 in that list. As is manifest from a perusal of the aforesaid order, his name was subsequently scored out with the observation being recorded that it was being placed in abeyance. Curiously the aforesaid remark made in that order is not signed by any authority of the respondents.

3. It further transpires from the record that upon receipt of certain complaints, the appointment of the petitioner was placed in abeyance on the allegation that the B.Ed. Degree as held by the petitioner was forged. Upon requisite inquiry being made, the respondent ultimately came to hold that the complaint was without substance. Consequently another order of 13 December 1999 came to be issued lifting the restraint which was placed on the appointment of the petitioner. Upon the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner joined services and was also paid salary and other emoluments regularly.

4. One Ram Murti Mishra in 2013 instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the Court alleging that various teachers who had been arrayed as respondents in that writ petition, had obtained appointments illegally without possessing the requisite teaching qualifications. The petitioner here was arrayed as one of the respondents in that Public Interest Litigation. That Public Interest Litigation came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of the Court leaving it open to the petitioner there to represent his case before the respondents and to bring to their attention the material that may be in his possession to establish that the private respondents arrayed in that petition had been appointed illegally. Based on the directions issued on that PIL, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to that notice and upon culmination of proceedings so initiated, the impugned order has come to be passed.

5. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order records the following adverse findings:

^^lfpo egksn; ds le{k Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ fuoklh& xzke&dqlEgh [kqnZ iksLV&fujatuiqj tuin&cLrh us viuk fu;qfDr i= vkns'k la[;k fu;Œ@7217&7433@99&2000 fnukad 18 uoEcj] 1999 rFkk vkns'k la[;k 1087&98@99&2000 fnukad 13 fnlEcj] 1999 dh Nk;kÁfr LoÁekf.kr djrs gq, ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA ftldk lR;kiu v|ksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; ds fMLiSp iaftdk ls fd;k x;k] ftlesa fu;qDr@1087@98@99&2000 fnukad 13 fnlEcj] 1999 QthZ ik;k x;kA Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ ds 'kS{kf.kd vfHkys[k QthZ gksus dh f'kdk;r Fkh] ftldk lR;kiu v|ksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; }kjk djk;k x;k] tks lgh ik;k x;kA tkap ds nkSjku ;g ik;k x;k gS fd Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ dh fu;qfDr dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 7217&7433@99&2000 fnukad 18 uoEcj] 1999 ds Øe la[;k 27 ij vafdr gS] ijUrq f'kdk;r ds Øe esa mDr vkns'k esa uke dkV fn;k x;k gS vkSj budk vkns'k jksd fn;k x;k FkkA Jh euhjke pkS/kjh iq= Jh jke vo/k pkS/kjh xzke& dqLegh cqtqxZ iksLV&flYyks ds f'kdk;r ÁkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-11-1999 ij eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh] cLrh us vius i= la[;k 978@,l Vh lh@99&2000 fnukad 17 uoEcj] 1999 ds }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] cLrh ls vk[;k dh ekax dh x;hA rRdkyhu ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] cLrh ds i= la[;k 7485@99&2000 fnukad 29 uoEcj] 1999 ds }kjk eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh egksn;] cLrh dks vk[;k Ásf"kr dh x;h] ftlesa mYys[k gS fd Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ }kjk QthZ chŒ,MŒ Áf'k{k.k dj fu;qfDr ÁkIr djus ds lEcU/k esa f'kdk;r gSA blfy, budk fu;qfDr i= jksd fy;k x;k gSA**

6. As is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid extract, the sole ground which the respondents have taken into consideration is tha