##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 3421 (S/S) of 2018

Smt. Reena Rani ….....Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing

Counsel for the State.

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order

impugned dated 01.10.2018 whereby the petitioner is

dismissed from service. Mr. Tapan Singh learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the

reliefs so far as it relates to SIT report.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an

advertisement was issued on 01.02.2014 inviting

applications for appointment to the post of Assistant

Teacher in primary institution. Last date for filling up the

form was 22.02.2014. Pursuant to the aforesaid

advertisement, the petitioner applied and permitted to

participate in selection process and declared successful

and offered appointment on 24.02.2016, which she

accepted and then joined and performed duties to the

utmost satisfaction her superiors.

2

3. In the meantime, one WPPIL No. 150 of 2023

was filed before this Court with regard to fake

appointments in the primary institution in the State and

the State Government constituted a Special Investigating

Team (SIT); to inquire about the appointment in the entire

State. Subsequently, SIT, so constituted, submitted its

report on 24.09.2018.

4. In the SIT report, it was mentioned that at the

time of appointment, the petitioner submitted permanent

resident certificate dated 22.05.2014, which, in fact, was

a forged document, since the record was not available in

the office of concerned authority who issued the said

certificate.

5. Based on the aforesaid SIT report, a

disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the petitioner

was given departmental charge-sheet on 15.09.2018

wherein she was charged that she produced a forged

permanent resident certificate dated 22.05.2014 in order

to procure the appointment. The petitioner submitted her

response to the charge-sheet and on completion of

disciplinary proceedings the charge, as inflicted upon her

pursuant to the charge-sheet, was found to be proved and

based on the said inquiry report, the disciplinary

3

authority dismissed the petitioner from service by order

impugned dated 01.10.2018.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that,

in fact, as per the advertisement, there is no such

requirement of furnishing the permanent resident

certificate except that the candidate should be an Indian

Citizen and enrolled with the Employment Exchange. He

submits that there is no dispute on the eligibility of the

petitioner, therefore, the order impugned cannot sustain

since the requirement of permanent resident certificate is

not at all required. Apart from this, he also submits that

in the year 2008, a permanent resident certificate was

issued to the petitioner manually on 08.02.2008 which

itself shows that, in fact, the petitioner is the permanent

resident of Laksar, District Haridwar, therefore, even if,

the subsequent certificate is found to be forged, it will not

vitiate the appointment of the petitioner. He submits that

earlier Coordinate Bench directed to inquire about the

genuineness of the permanent resident certificate and in

compliance thereof, the S.D.M., Laksar submitted its

report on 26.04.2025, wherein he found that the

permanent resident certificate issued earlier on

08.02.2008 was issued from the office of Tehsil Laksar,

4

District Haridwar. The report accompanied the

application form of the applicant and other relevant

documents placed on record in a sealed envelope. He

submits that there is no dispute with regard to other

requirement and the petitioner is dismissed from service

merely on the ground that the subsequent permanent

resident certificate dated 22.02.2014 was found to be

forged one as the same was not issued from the office

concerned.

7. On the other side Mr. Pradeep Hairiya and Mr.

Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the

State, argued t