ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 02.04.2024, whereby the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Primary School Teacher has been cancelled by the respondent No.3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of thePrimary School Teacher under hearing handicapped category. They had submitted disability certificates indicating they are hearing handicapped. The said certificates are on record as Annexure P-3 collectively. These certificates are stated to have been issued by the Civil Surgeon, District Chhatarpur (M.P.). 3 . It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioners were duly appointed under hearing handicapped category and their appointment orders were duly issued. Thereafter, certain verification took place and it was found that the said certificates are not entered in the concerning record of District Medical Board of the District Hospital, Chhatarpur. Thus, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners vide Annexure P-5.

4. It is further the case of the petitioners that the State authorities had decided the grant an opportunity to the petitioners to establish whether they are actually hearing handicapped or not and for that purpose, a letter dated 20.10.2023 was issued, wherein it was directed that all such candidates, who have been given appointment under handicapped category should be called for undergoing re-verification of their handicapped status. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms with the said general instructions dated 20.10.2023, the petitioners were also directed to undergo re-verification of their handicapped status and vide letter dated 26.10.2023 Annexure P-4, the petitioners were directed to appear before the District Medical Board, Chhatarpur on 31.10.2023. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners underwent BERA Test at different Medical Colleges and on the basis of BERA Test; the District Medical Board issued physical verification reports in favour of the present petitioners. These physical verification reports are on record as Annexure P-10. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the three petitioners were indeed found to be hearing handicapped in the physical verification vide Annexure P-10. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were given appointment in April, 2023 and they could not have been terminated without conducting regular enquiry.

5. It is also the case of the petitioners that once the respondent – State authorities themselves decided to grant another opportunity to the petitioners to establish their physical handicapped status and the petitioners duly established their physical handicapped status, then the petitioners’ appointment could not have been cancelled by the respondents by taking a somersault relying on the earlier handicapped certificates.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the State that it was detected that there have been large scale irregularities in issuance of handicapped certificates and a large number of candidates were appointed on the basis of handicapped certificates. The petitioners were admittedly appointed on the basis of handicapped certificates, which were not found to be actually issued in the record of issuing authority. Thus, the appointment was procured by the petitioners on the basis of forged documents and false affidavits, which amounts to misconduct in terms of various clauses of Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. Thus, the authority has not erred in cancellation of appointment of the petitioners.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments has not disputed the fact that the earlier handicapped certificates issued to the petitioners vide Annexure P-3 were found to be not entered in the record of the issuing authority. Thus, it is evident fro