The determination of the validity of an appointment based on alleged fraudulent approval and the interpretation of forgery and valuable security under IPC require detailed evidence and deliberation, falling within the domain of the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The facts in both these C-482 Applications are almost similar except for the few arguments extended by the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence, they are being decided together.

2. The facts as involved herein are, that there is an institution being managed under the name of Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Sanjay Nagar, Bindukhata, District Nainital, which is an institution, which was at that relevant point of time was running as a recognized institution prior to it being brought into grant-in-aid. It is not in dispute between the parties that the said institution was run and managed by the elected committee of management.

3. In the institution, in question, certain vacancies occurred for the post of Assistant Teacher, i.e., Teacher (General) and Teacher (Maths/Science). The management of the institution could not have independently proceeded to resort to the process of selection; except with the prior approval from District Basic Education Officer. Hence, after taking a prior approval, which was accorded on 19th April, 1999, the process of selection was put into motion by issuance of an advertisement on 30th April, 1999, for making recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers and an advertisement to the said effect was published in Danik Jagran on 30th April, 1999. As against the total posts, which were advertised, the Maths and Science Teacher posts were reserved and the post of Teacher (General) was unreserved, for which, we would not be concerned in the present C-482 Applications.

4. In pursuance to the advertisement of 30th April, 1999, the same was not responded by any candidate, thus the Committee of the Management took a second permission from the District Basic Education Officer, which was granted by the letter dated 7th January, 2000, and once again, an advertisement was issued for holding the selection process as against the posts, which were covered by the advertisement of 30th April, 1999, and a permission to the said effect was granted by the District Basic Education Officer on 13th January, 2000. Consequentially, an advertisement of 20th January, 2000, was issued and the process of selection was put to motion, and its at this stage, the controversy started emerging, which requires subsequent consideration in the instant C-482 Applications.

5. As against the process of recruitment against the two reserved categories for the Assistant Teacher (General) and Assistant Teacher (Science and Maths), the applicant contends that he appeared in the selection process and was interviewed on 4th February, 2000. He contends that two teachers were selected by the Committee constituted and accordingly, the name of the applicant and one Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tamta was sent for an approval to the District Basic Education Officer.

6. It is contended by the applicant, that the District Basic Education Officer, had consequently granted his approval for the aforesaid appointment by a correspondence as said to be made by his office, being letter No. 2859-96/2000/2001, dated 02.02.2001, by virtue of which, the case of the applicant is, that once the District Basic Education Officer has granted an approval for appointment of both the teachers, namely Rajendra Kumar Tamta and Naveen Chandra Pathak, i.e. the applicant herein, it cannot be said that the aforesaid letter of approval of appointment issued by the District Basic Education Officer, was a fraudulent document on the basis of which the applicant has procured his appointment, which it could be said that could have necessitated the initiation of the proceedings by way of registration of FIR, being FIR No. 50 of 2013, dated 17th April, 2013, as registered by respondent No. 2 /complainant, for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

7. Consequently, the allegation levelled in the FIR almost could be summarized, that it was contended by the complainant, that the applicant has obtained the recruitment on the basis of the fraudule