JUDGMENT : Yashwant Varma, J. 1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel who appears for the contesting respondent the Basic Education Officer. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school pursuant to an order passed by the Basic Education Officer, Basti on 18 November 1999. That order stands appended to the writ petition as Annexure-2. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 27 in that list. As is manifest from a perusal of the aforesaid order, his name was subsequently scored out with the observation being recorded that it was being placed in abeyance. Curiously the aforesaid remark made in that order is not signed by any authority of the respondents. 3. It further transpires from the record that upon receipt of certain complaints, the appointment of the petitioner was placed in abeyance on the allegation that the B.Ed. Degree as held by the petitioner was forged. Upon requisite inquiry being made, the respondent ultimately came to hold that the complaint was without substance. Consequently another order of 13 December 1999 came to be issued lifting the restraint which was placed on the appointment of the petitioner. Upon the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner joined services and was also paid salary and other emoluments regularly. 4. One Ram Murti Mishra in 2013 instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the Court alleging that various teachers who had been arrayed as respondents in that writ petition, had obtained appointments illegally without possessing the requisite teaching qualifications. The petitioner here was arrayed as one of the respondents in that Public Interest Litigation. That Public Interest Litigation came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of the Court leaving it open to the petitioner there to represent his case before the respondents and to bring to their attention the material that may be in his possession to establish that the private respondents arrayed in that petition had been appointed illegally. Based on the directions issued on that PIL, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to that notice and upon culmination of proceedings so initiated, the impugned order has come to be passed. 5. Based on the directions issued on that PIL, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to that notice and upon culmination of proceedings so initiated, the impugned order has come to be passed. 5. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order records the following adverse findings: ^^lfpo egksn; ds le{k Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ fuoklh& xzke&dqlEgh [kqnZ iksLV&fujatuiqj tuin&cLrh us viuk fu;qfDr i= vkns'k la[;k fu;Œ@7217&7433@99&2000 fnukad 18 uoEcj] 1999 rFkk vkns'k la[;k 1087&98@99&2000 fnukad 13 fnlEcj] 1999 dh Nk;kÁfr LoÁekf.kr djrs gq, ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA ftldk lR;kiu v|ksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; ds fMLiSp iaftdk ls fd;k x;k] ftlesa fu;qDr@1087@98@99&2000 fnukad 13 fnlEcj] 1999 QthZ ik;k x;kA Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ ds 'kS{kf.kd vfHkys[k QthZ gksus dh f'kdk;r Fkh] ftldk lR;kiu v|ksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; }kjk djk;k x;k] tks lgh ik;k x;kA tkap ds nkSjku ;g ik;k x;k gS fd Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ dh fu;qfDr dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 7217&7433@99&2000 fnukad 18 uoEcj] 1999 ds Øe la[;k 27 ij vafdr gS] ijUrq f'kdk;r ds Øe esa mDr vkns'k esa uke dkV fn;k x;k gS vkSj budk vkns'k jksd fn;k x;k FkkA Jh euhjke pkS/kjh iq= Jh jke vo/k pkS/kjh xzke& dqLegh cqtqxZ iksLV&flYyks ds f'kdk;r ÁkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-11-1999 ij eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh] cLrh us vius i= la[;k 978@,l Vh lh@99&2000 fnukad 17 uoEcj] 1999 ds }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] cLrh ls vk[;k dh ekax dh x;hA rRdkyhu ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] cLrh ds i= la[;k 7485@99&2000 fnukad 29 uoEcj] 1999 ds }kjk eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh egksn;] cLrh dks vk[;k Ásf"kr dh x;h] ftlesa mYys[k gS fd Jh t;jke iq= Jh ढquequ }kjk QthZ chŒ,MŒ Áf'k{k.k dj fu;qfDr ÁkIr djus ds lEcU/k esa f'kdk;r gSA blfy, budk fu;qfDr i= jksd fy;k x;k gSA** 6. As is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid extract, the sole ground which the respondents have taken into consideration is that the order of 13 December 1999 is forged. That finding itself rests on the respondent finding that the aforesaid communication was not mentioned in the dispatch register. The respondents further record that the complaint which had been received insofar as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, related to his B.Ed. Degree and that an inquiry in respect of the veracity thereof was under way and it was in the aforesaid backdrop that his appointment had been placed in abeyance. 7. The respondents further record that the complaint which had been received insofar as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, related to his B.Ed. Degree and that an inquiry in respect of the veracity thereof was under way and it was in the aforesaid backdrop that his appointment had been placed in abeyance. 7. On 09 October 2018, the Court passed the following order on this petition: ''Learned standing counsel is granted time to file supplementary counter-affidavit clarifying as to whether final report has been submitted in Crime Case No. 768 of 2014 and whether it has been accepted by the Court or not. He shall also clarify as to whether original order dated 18.11.1999 is available in the official record. It shall also be clarified whether any order cancelling appointment of other teachers, who were also appointed by order dated 18.11.1999, has been passed till date or not or whether any enquiry is pending against them. The affidavit shall be filed by a responsible person not below the rank of Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. List on 26.10.2018. Learned standing counsel and Sri Awadhesh Kumar shall communicate this order to respondent No. 2 to ensure its compliance.'' 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued, the respondents have filed a supplementary counter-affidavit. In the supplementary counter-affidavit and more particularly paragraph 5 thereof, the respondents categorically assert that the original order of appointment of the petitioner of 18 November 1999 exists on the original records of the Basic Education Officer. In respect of the second query namely whether the order of 18 November 1999 has been cancelled either in respect of the petitioner or other teachers, it is stated that the appointment of no other teacher mentioned in that order has been cancelled and that no inquiries are pending against them. In light of the averments so made, the Court fails to appreciate the stand taken by the respondent in the impugned order. 9. Even during the course of oral submissions today, the respondents do not assert or rely upon any material to establish that the order of 18 November 1999 is forged or fabricated. It is also not their case that the B.Ed. certificate upon which the petitioner placed reliance in support of his candidature has been found to be forged or fabricated. Even during the course of oral submissions today, the respondents do not assert or rely upon any material to establish that the order of 18 November 1999 is forged or fabricated. It is also not their case that the B.Ed. certificate upon which the petitioner placed reliance in support of his candidature has been found to be forged or fabricated. In fact and to the contrary the communication of 13 December 1999 had itself found that the certificate was genuine. It becomes relevant to note that the only ground pressed upon which the original appointment was placed in abeyance was a complaint with respect to the genuineness of the B.Ed. certificate that had been produced by the petitioner. That upon due inquiry was found to be a valid and genuine certificate. In that view of the matter, no reason or circumstance existed for placing the appointment of the petitioner in abeyance. 10. The Court also finds itself unable to sustain the finding as recorded in the impugned order of the communication of 13 December 1999 being forged since it did not find mentioned in the dispatch register. Arguments and contentions of a similar tenor have been rejected in the past not just by this Court but also by the Supreme Court. The Court deems it relevant to cite the decision of the Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 10 SCC 282 , in this respect: ''3. On 1.1.1997 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to give reply to the same by 3.1.1997 and his services were terminated. The ground upon which the services were sought to be terminated is as follows: ''The Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh, vide Letter No. 2300 dated 23.12.1996 (copy enclosed) has informed the undersigned that according to Letter No. 2681 dated 12.11.1982 no appointment letter has been issued to anyone. Hence your appointment is fake.'' 4. Ultimately an order was made by the Chief Medical Officer stating that the appointment letter of the appellant which has been shown vide Memorandum No. 2681 dated 12.11.1982 is a letter of the office which is hot in regard to the appointment of anyone. On that basis his services were terminated. He filed a writ petition before the High Court. 5. The learned Single Judge by an order made on 3.9.1998 dismissed the same. On that basis his services were terminated. He filed a writ petition before the High Court. 5. The learned Single Judge by an order made on 3.9.1998 dismissed the same. It appears that certain records were produced before the Court and when the stand had been taken by the appellant that the letter of appointment was not forged, on seeing the issue register in question the learned Single Judge felt satisfied that it could not be the letter of appointment. This view, however, stood affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal before us. 6. What should have been really examined in the case is the letter of appointment itself and not the mere registers which indicate dispatch of letters. If the letter of appointment issued to the appellant was a fake one there was certainly a cause for disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred for numbers noted therein may have been as a result of a mistake. Therefore, the inquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That inquiry was not done by the learned Single Judge.'' 11. Accordingly and for the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the view as taken and expressed in the order impugned. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12 March 2015 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential reliefs. 13. Since the respondents have compelled the petitioner to undertake a litigation which was wholly unnecessary and clearly avoidable, they shall also stand foisted with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall be handed over to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.