IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, RAVI NATH TILHARI, JJ.
Malti Devi – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 4812 of 2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Appointment of petitioner - Quash - Case are that petitioner obtained appointment as Assistant Teacher in an institution run by UP- Basic Education Board vide order of appointment issued by District Basic Education Officer - By order appointment of petitioner was cancelled on ground that petitioner had obtained public employment on post of Assistant Teacher on basis of forged TET- Certificate/marksheet - It appears that against aforesaid order of cancellation of appointment dated –Held, Petitioner has obtained employment by misrepresentation and fraud and thus unauthorized and fraudulently received payment of public money- Neither extreme hardship in recovery has been argued before us nor any material has been placed to indicate extreme hardship on recovery of amount- That apart equitable and discretionary jurisdiction Constitution of India cannot be invoked by petitioner and circumstances of present case principle laid down in case been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State - In case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “in such circumstances court find no reason to interfere with judgment of High Court case recovery impugned order/Recovery Notice is neither iniquitous nor arbitrary - Petitioner has received public money by obtaining appointment on basis of a forged TET marksheet- Therefore retention of public money received by petitioner as salary is against fundamental principles of justice equity and good conscience- It is an unjust retention of public money by petitioner which amounts to unjust enrichment - Therefore impugned recovery notice cannot be interfered – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
1. Heard Sri. Babloo Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Alok Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi (i.e. respondent No. 3) to forthwith, release the salary of the petitioner with effect from April, 2017 till today as and when it falls due and not to cause any interference in the working of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Mehewaghat Sarsawan Primary School, Kaushambi.”
Facts
3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner obtained appointment as Assistant Teacher in an institution run by U.P. Basic Education Board, vide order of appointment issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi. By order dated 14.08.2018, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had obtained public employment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of forged T.E.T. Certificate/marksheet 2011. It appears that against the aforesaid order of cancellation of appointment dated 14.08.2018, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 5185 of 2019 (Malti Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others) in which an interim order dated 08.07.2019 was passed staying the effect and operation of the order dated 14.08.2018.
4. It appears that the petitioner has obtained salary from the State-exchequer. Consequently, the impugned recovery notice dated 10.07.2020 was issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner, which is reproduced below:-
i=kad% vuqŒ&01@1717&22@2020&21] fnukad 10-07-2020
fjdojh uksfVl
Jherh ekyrh nsoh iq=h Jh gfj 'kadj oekZ]
¼lsok ls fu"dkflr½ lgk;d v/;kid]
ÁkFkfed fo|ky;&cgknqjiqj] ea>uiqj
fuoklh&xzke iqj[khiqj iksLV&[kjxkiqj
Fkkuk&lksjkao tuin&Á;kxjktA
dk;kZy; vkns'k 519@2018&19 fnukad 14-08-2018 ds }kjk vkidks f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk 2011 dk QthZ Áek.k i= ÁLrqr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k lsok ls i`Fkd djrs gq, vkids fo:} LFkkuh; Fkkuk esa ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk nh x;h gSA foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh csfld f'k{kk dkS'kkEch ds i= la[;k ysŒlaŒ@348&53@2020&21 fnukad 07-07-2020 ds vuqlkj foHkkx esa dh x;h lsok ds lkis{k vki }kjk osrukfn en esa ÁkIr fd;s x;s osru dh fjdojh dk vkx.ku rS;kj dj v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; dks Ásf"kr fd;k x;k gSA
mDrkuqlkj ÁkIr vkx.ku ds vuqlkj lEiw.kZ lsok vof/k esa vkius lHkh ifjyfC/k;ksa ds lkis{k :i;s 21]85]920-00 ¼:i;k bDdhl yk[k ipklh gtkj ukS lkS chl ek=½ dk Hkqxrku osru ds :i esa ÁkIr fd;k x;k gS] pawfd vkids }kjk dwVjfpr@QthZ vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ÁkIr dj osru Lo:i :i;s 21]85]920-00 ¼:i;k bDdhl yk[k ipklh gtkj ukS lkS chl ek=½ dk Hkqxrku ÁkIr fd;k x;k gSA vLrq vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki }kjk ÁkIr fd;s x;s osru dks fu;ekuqlkj jktdks"k esa 07 fnolksa ds vUnj tek fd;s x;s /ku ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA vU;Fkk dh fLFkr esa vki }kjk osru ,oa vU; HkRrksa ds lkFk esa dh x;h dqy /kujkf'k :i;s 21]85]920-00 ¼:i;k bDdhl yk[k ipklh gtkj ukS lkS chl ek=½ dh olwyh Hkw&jktLo dh Hkkafr dh tk;sxh] ftldk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro vkidk gksxkA
gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼jktdqekj iafMr½
ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh
dkS'kkEch
i`"B la[;k% vuqŒ&01@2020&21] fnukad
Áfrfyfi & fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr%&
¼1½ ftykf/kdkjh egksn;] dkS'kkEchA
¼2½ f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ mRrj Áns'k] y[kuÅA
¼3½ lfpo] mRrj Áns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn Á;kxjktA
¼4½ foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh ¼csfld f'k{kk½ dkS'kkEchA
¼5½ lEcfU/kr [k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh tuin dkS'kkEch dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk ds mDr v/;kid ds irs dk feyku lsok iaftdk ls djrs gq, lgh irs ij i= dh Áfr jftLVMZ Mkd ls Ásf"kr djrs gq, jftLVªh dh Nk;k Áfr
State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White washer)
Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs
Lazarus Estate Ltd. vs. Beasley
Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. 2012 (8) SCC 748
Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttarkhand and Others
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and Others
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana vs. Israil Khan and Others
S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. AIR 1994 SC 853
Fraud vitiates everything, and a subsequent action cannot validate an action that was not lawful at its inception. If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage.
Fraudulent appointments are void ab initio, and individuals securing employment through deceit cannot claim protections under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institu....
Recovery of excess emoluments from contractual employees due to departmental miscalculation of pay and allowances impermissible absent employee misrepresentation; quashed on equity grounds for class-....
Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where it is established that appointment is obtained by fraud, cannot allow fraud to perpetuate by accepting a plea of a person t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.