Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 172 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-01-15

SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2013
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and perused the record. 2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. 3 .After completion of the B.T.C. training, the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 31.12.2005 by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad (respondent no. 3) as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Govindpur, Development Block Bikapur, District Faizabad. Since then he was continuously working on the said post. The certificates submitted by him at the time of his appointment were verified by the competent authority and were found to be genuine. On 8.10.2007, all of sudden despite the prior verification of the documents of the petitioners, respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in B.Sc. second year examination but unfortunately he could not clear B.Sc. second year examination and was required to appear in the back paper of Zoology B.Sc. second year examination conducted by the University. The petitioner appeared in the back paper of Zoology in the year 1998 and he cleared the said paper and was declared pass by the University. After verification of the documents of the petitioner, on the behest of some other unknown person an information was sent by the University whereby the petitioner was shown to have failed in B.Sc. second year examination. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the petitioner failed in the B.Sc. second year examination but after clearing the back paper, he was declared successful by the University and his result was also verified by the University but on getting the subsequent report without giving any opportunity of hearing to put his case and to satisfy the competent authority that the certificates furnished by him were not forged and fabricated, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that initially the documents filed by the petitioner were verified by the University and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the basis of the allegation of submission of false certificates the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that initially the documents filed by the petitioner were verified by the University and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the basis of the allegation of submission of false certificates the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. Once the documents were verified by the University, then the presumption had arisen in favour of the petitioner that the documents filed by him were genuine and bona fide. 7. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in paragraph no. 12, it is admitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as the incumbent had concealed the correct facts and has committed fraud and cheating. 8. In the case of Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [JT 2012 (11) SC 95] Hon'ble the Apex Court has remitted the matter for reconsideration in view of the similar facts situation. In the facts of that case, in the first verification, caste certificate furnished by the petitioner was found to be correct but subsequently one third person made a complaint that the caste certificate was forged and on the basis of the said complaint, the order was passed against the petitioner, which was under challenge. Hon'ble the Apex court has held that after verification, a strong presumption has arisen in favour of the petitioner and in that background, the matter was remitted back to the concerned authority for deciding it afresh. 9. Since the petitioner failed in the B.Sc. second year main examination and he was required to appear in the back paper, which was cleared by him, therefore, there was no concealment or cheating or fraud committed on behalf of the petitioner but without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, services of the petitioner were terminated. Contention of the petitioner finds full support by the documents filed by him. 10. In view of the discussion made above, petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 8.10.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 is hereby quashed. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad is further directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering his case, he shall pass a detailed and reasoned order within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced him. 11. 3 is hereby quashed. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad is further directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering his case, he shall pass a detailed and reasoned order within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced him. 11. In view of the above observation/direction, the writ petition is allowed. _____________