Quasi-judicial authorities must provide substantiated reasoning in their decisions to ensure fairness in civil rights matters.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Budhwar, J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second and the third respondent is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, for the writ petitioners, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent no.1, Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Upadhyay, for the fourth respondent.

3. The case of the writ petitioners who are two in number is that it is an institution by the name of Jubilee Sanskrit College, Ballia which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and it is also grant in aid list of State Government, provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 stands applicable.

4. According to the writ petitioners purusant to the retirement of one Sri Baij Nath Pandey, who was working as a Principal of the petitioners' institution the vacancy stood arisen which was advertised in two widely circulated news papers and the fourth respondent, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tripathi applied for the post of Principal in the petitioners' institution.

5. In para 10 of the writ petition it has been asserted that the fourth respondent in order to show experience had relied upon a certificate issued by the Principal of Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya dated 12.1.2015 showing the fact that the fourth respondent had teaching experience since July, 2004 till the issuance of the teaching experience certificate dated 12.1.2015.

6. The interviews pursuant to the said selection was conducted on 3.4.2016 and the fourth respondent thereafter proceeded to furnish another education teaching certificate dated 23.7.2015 mentioning therein that he was appointed in the month of July, 2010 in the institution, Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and he is teaching till the issuance of the certificate.

7. Based upon the eligibility and experience certificate so submitted by the fourth respondent he was appointed as a Principal in the petitioners' institution and he assumed the charge on 15.6.2016 and was placed under probation from 15.6.2016 to 15.6.2017.

8. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that with respect to the verification of the teaching experience certificate submitted by the fourth respondent dated 23.7.2015 on 1.6.2017, the petitioners' institution made a communication to the Manager of Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya regarding verification of the said certificate.

9. On 3.7.2017 as per the writ petitioners a communication was sent by the Manager of the Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya wherein according to the writ petitioners' the teaching experience certificate submitted by the fourth respondent under the signature of the Principal Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya was stated to be forged and in para 4 it was stated that fourth respondent was at no point of time appointed in the institution, Sri Ramanand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. Faced with these circumstances, the petitioners' institution issued a notice requiring the fourth respondent to submit explanation/clarification to the same.

10. Pleadings further reveal that an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Committee appointed by the petitioners' institution which tendered his inquiry report dated 4.2.2018 holding that the experience certificate submitted by the fourth respondent was forged and the allegations stood proved against the fourth respondent.

11. The inquiry report was placed before the Committee of Management of the institution in question and accordingly a decision was taken on 18.2.2018 by the Committee of Management of the petitioners' institution whereby the fourth respondent was pla