Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 868 (ALL)

Anusuiya Sharma v. State Of U. P.

2024-03-20

MANJIVE SHUKLA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents including the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj and Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad. 2. Since both the writ petitions are inter-connected and decision of Writ-A No. 8011 of 2020 is dependent on the decision of Writ-A No. 2941 of 2020, therefore they have been connected together and are being decided by the common judgement. 3. Petitioner through Writ-A No. 2941 of 2020 has challenged the orders dated 31.10.2019 and 22.01.2020 whereby petitioner’s Special B.T.C. Training Certificate has been cancelled. Petitioner through Writ-A No. 8011 of 2020 has challenged the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad whereby petitioner’s appointment has been declared to be void-ab-initio. FACTS OF THE CASE: 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner having requisite educational qualifications, applied for admission in Special B.T.C. Training, 2007 under physically disabled (general women) category. Petitioner along with her application, annexed the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad whereby it was certified that petitioner suffers with 50% partial permanent disability. 5. Petitioner completed her Special B.T.C. Training from District Institute for Education and Training (hereinafter to be referred as “DIET”), Harchandpur Kalan, District Etah and was issued Special B.T.C. Training Certificate by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj. On the strength of the said Special B.T.C. Training Certificate, petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Chirawali, District Etah/Kashiram Nagar vide appointment order dated 3.7.2009. Petitioner submitted her joining on the aforesaid post on 6.07.2009 and started getting salary from the State Exchequer. Subsequently petitioner was transferred from District Etah to District Firozabad and was posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Nagla Sonth, Block Narkhi, District Firozabad. 6. It appears that certain complaints were made to the State Government wherein allegation was levelled that certain candidates have obtained appointment by using fake disability certificates therefore, State Government issued a Government Order on 10.11.2009 whereby direction was given for constituting fresh medical board and to verify disability of the candidates. 6. It appears that certain complaints were made to the State Government wherein allegation was levelled that certain candidates have obtained appointment by using fake disability certificates therefore, State Government issued a Government Order on 10.11.2009 whereby direction was given for constituting fresh medical board and to verify disability of the candidates. The Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training (hereinafter referred to as “SCERT”), U.P., Lucknow also issued a letter addressed to all the Principals of DIET whereby direction was given for verification of the disability of the candidates who passed out the Special B.T.C. course, through fresh medical board. 7. The Government Order dated 10.11.2009 and the order dated 15.07.2010 were challenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53152 of 2010 (Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) but learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 31.08.2010. The judgement and order dated 31.08.2010 was challenged in Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Special Appeal with a direction that firstly respondents will verify the genuineness of the disability certificate of the candidates and once it is found that the certificate is fake, only then they will be subjected to disability test by the fresh medical board. The judgement and order dated 9.09.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 was challenged by the State of U.P. through S.L.P. (C) No. 8880 of 2011 (State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others). The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgement and order dated 03.02.2016 set-aside the aforesaid judgement and order dated 9.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 and further provided that before taking any action against the inviduals, they shall be issued show cause in the matter and thereafter decision will be taken in accordance with law. 8. In compliance of the aforesaid judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Principal, DIET, Harchandpur Kalan, Etah issued a show cause notice on 24.05.2018 wherein it was stated that petitioner has used a forged and fabricated disability certificate to secure her admission in the Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 and therefore, cause may be shown as to why Special B.T.C. Training Certificate issued to the petitioner may not be cancelled. Petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 24.05.2018 submitted her reply wherein she categorically stated that Disability Certificate No. 1549 issued to the petitioner by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad on 20.07.2006 is a genuine document and at no point of time, it has been found that the said certificate has not been issued by the competent authority. 9. Principal, DIET, Harchandpur Kalan, District Etah vide his notice dated 15.10.2018 required the petitioner to appear before the medical board headed by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow on 14.11.2018 and to get her disability certified. Petitioner in compliance of the notice dated 15.10.2018 appeared before the medical board and the said medical board issued certificate wherein petitioner’s disability has been found to be 20%. 10. Principal, DIET, Harchandpur Kalan, Etah again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 27.02.2019 wherein he cited the disability certificate dated 14.11.2018 issued by the fresh medical board and thereby stated that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1995”), 40% disability is must for claiming the benefit of reservation under the Physically Disabled Category whereas her disability has been found only 20% as such, it is apparent that she has used forged and fabricated disability certificate for securing her admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 therefore, she may show cause as to why her candidature for Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 may not be cancelled. Petitioner submitted her reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 12.03.2019 wherein she categorically stated that the Disability Certificate No. 1549 issued to her by Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad on 20.07.2006 is a genuine document and at no point of time, it has been found that the same is either forged or fabricated. Petitioner in her reply further submitted that she met with a serious accident and thereby she became disabled. She applied for disability certificate and she was subjected to medical examination by medical board and thereafter disability certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad whereby it was certified that petitioner suffers from 50% partial permanent disability. Petitioner in her reply further submitted that she met with a serious accident and thereby she became disabled. She applied for disability certificate and she was subjected to medical examination by medical board and thereafter disability certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad whereby it was certified that petitioner suffers from 50% partial permanent disability. Petitioner in her reply also categorically stated that she is in continuous medical treatment with effect from the date of her accident therefore, merely because the fresh medical board which was constituted after about 12 years has reported that petitioner is having only 20% disability, it cannot be presumed that the medical certificate dated 26.07.2006 is a forged and fabricated document. 11. Though, show cause notice for cancelling candidature of the petitioner of the Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 was issued by the Principal, DIET, Harchandpur Kalan, Etah, but all of a sudden, Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad has passed the order dated 31.10.2019 wherein it is mentioned that on the basis of information related with non-certification of the disability of certain candidates, on the directions of Director, S.C.E.R.T., U.P., Lucknow, Result Committee in its meetings held on 19.03.2019 and 21.10.2019 has taken decision to cancel the certificates of Special B.T.C. Training, 2007 issued to the petitioner and other candidates. 12. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj which recites that Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj in its meetings held on 19.03.2019 and 21.10.2019 has taken decision to cancel the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate issued to the petitioner, by filing Writ-A No. 2941 of 2020. 13. On the strengh of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad issued notices to the petitioner on 3.02.2020, 13.02.2020 and 22.02.2020 whereby he directed petitioner to appear before him on the date fixed and to submit her reply along with evidence as her Special B.T.C. Training Certificate has been cancelled by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj vide order dated 31.10.2019. Petitioner in response to the aforesaid notices, submitted application on 15.02.2020 whereby she requested for providing copies of the letters dated 31.10.2015 and 13.05.2016 and further she filed an application on 28.02.2020 whereby she submitted that the disability certificate was duly issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad. 14. Petitioner in response to the aforesaid notices, submitted application on 15.02.2020 whereby she requested for providing copies of the letters dated 31.10.2015 and 13.05.2016 and further she filed an application on 28.02.2020 whereby she submitted that the disability certificate was duly issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad. 14. The District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad has passed order on 13.03.2020 whereby petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been declared to be void-ab-initio only for the reason that her Special B.T.C. Training Certificate has been cancelled by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj vide order dated 31.10.2019. 15. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad by filing Writ-A No. 8011 of 2020. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner suffered disability out of an accident. She applied for disability certificate and was subjected to thorough medical examination by the medical board at district Firozabad and accordingly she was issued Disability Certificate No. 1549 on 20.07.2006 under the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad. 17. It is not the case of respondents that the aforesaid disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 has not been issued by a competent medical board and therefore, any action against the petitioner treating the said disability certificate to be a forged and fabricated document, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the medical boards i.e. medical board which examined the petitioner at the time of issuance of disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 which found her to be having 50% partial permanent disability and the medical board which examined the petitioner at the time of issuance of disability certificate dated 14.11.2018 and found her to be having 20% disability, have examined the petitioner as per their methods and standards of examination but the fact remains that petitioner is a disabled person and her Disability Certificate No. 1549 dated 20.07.2006 is a genuine document. It has also been submitted that there may be possibility of error in the decisions taken by both the aforesaid medical boards and for that, petitioner cannot be held responsible that too after about 14 years from the date of issuance of disability certificate. It has also been submitted that there may be possibility of error in the decisions taken by both the aforesaid medical boards and for that, petitioner cannot be held responsible that too after about 14 years from the date of issuance of disability certificate. There may also be possibility that due to proper medical treatment, the disability of the petitioner may have been reduced from 50% to 20% but by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner does not suffer from physical disability and her Disability Certificate dated 20.07.2006 is a forged and fabricated document. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the provisions of the Act of 1995 provides that any person who suffers with 40% disability will be termed as ‘disabled person’ and shall be entitled for benefits of reservation under the disabled category meaning thereby that both the categories of persons i.e. persons suffering with more than 40% permanent disability and the persons suffering with more than 40% disability are entitled for benefit of reservation for different purposes provided under the Act of 1995, therefore the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 thereby describing petitioner to be 50% partially permanent disabled, the percentage of disability may have reduced due to medical treatment but by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that petitioner has committed any fraud or forgery therefore, petitioner cannot be penalized for the errors in the decision making process or any other error committed by the two medical boards before whom petitioner has been subjected to medical examination. 19. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj has not considered the aforesaid issues at all and straightway has cancelled the Special BT.C. Training Certificate issued to the petitioner only on the ground that since in the medical examination conducted by the medical board on 14.11.2018, she has been found to be having only 20% disability therefore, the decision taken by the Result Committee, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2019 by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, on its face, is erroneous. 20. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the authority which has cancelled the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate issued to the petitioner i.e. Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even has not issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking decision to cancel the certificate, as such, decision of the Result Committee communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2019 by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, on its face, is hit by the violation of the principles of natural justice. It has further been argued that had the Result Committee before taking decision to cancel petitioner’s B.T.C. Training certificate would have issued notice to the petitioner or would have afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner then it may have been explained to the Result Committee that it is not a case of forgery or fabricating any document but it is a case of different standards and methods adopted by the two different medical boards and it may be a case of error in decision making process adopted by the two different medical boards and therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible and cannot be penalized. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court that in this case, a very unique method has been adopted as the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Principal, DIET who has no authority to cancel the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate issued to the petitioner whereas the competent authority i.e. Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj has not issued any show cause notice and without taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner, straightway has cancelled her Special B.T.C. Training Certificate therefore, the decision taken in the matter, stands vitiated due to non-observance of the principles of natural justice. 22. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is not the case of the respondents that petitioner does not suffer from physical disability but it is a case of variance in the percentage of physical disability ascertained by two medical boards at a gap of about 12 years therefore, the essence of time is of paramount importance and it cannot be ignored that there may be an error in the decision making process adopted by the medical boards and there may also be possibility of improvement in the percentage of physical disability of the petitioner, as such, it is absolutely arbitrary to cancel the Special B.T.C. Certificate after about 13 years and thereby to declare petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher void-ab-initio after about 11 years. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that petitioner was a regularly appointed and a confirmed Assistant Teacher working in a primary school therefore, her appointment could not have been cancelled without adopting due procedure prescribed under law i.e. without holding proper disciplinary inquiry as contemplated under the rules but the District Basic Education Officer has straightway passed the order on 13.03.2020 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been declared to be void-ab-initio on the basis of the order dated 31.10.2019 issued by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj reciting therein that the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate issued to the petitioner, has been cancelled by the Result Committee. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that at no point of time i.e. either at the time of cancellation of petitioner’s Special B.T.C. Training Certificate by the Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj or at the time of passing of the order by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad declaring the petitioner’s appointment as void-ab-initio, petitioner’s case that she has not committed any forgery, has been considered in its true perspective, accordingly, writ petitions filed by the petitioner are liable to be allowed by this Court. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: 25. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: 25. Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj has submitted that petitioner on the basis of Disability Certificate No. 1549 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad on 20.07.2006 has obtained admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 and was issued certificate on completion of the said course but later on when on 14.11.2018, she was subjected to medical examination by the fresh medical board, it was found that she is suffering with only 20% physical disability whereas in the certificate dated 20.07.2006, she has been shown to be having 50% partial permanent disability, accordingly, it is menifest that the certificate dated 20.07.2006 is a forged and fabricated document and as such petitioner’s Special B.T.C. Training Certificate has been cancelled which is perfectly in accordance with law. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj has further submitted that petitioner was issued show cause notice by the Principal, DIET and thereafter decision has been taken by the Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj and the said decision was duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2019 by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to say that decision has been taken by the Result Committee without following the principles of natural justice. 26. Learned Standing Counsel has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that once it has been found that petitioner is not suffering with minimum 40% physical disability required for availing the benefit of reservation under the disabled category, she is not entitled to continue with the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate and accordingly, same has been cancelled, therefore, writ petitions filed by the petitioner, being absolutely misconceived, are liable to be dismissed by this Court. 27. Mr. S.K. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad has submitted that since the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj vide order dated 31.10.2019 has cancelled the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner therefore, the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad issued notices to the petitioner and thereafter has passed order on 13.03.2020 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been declared to be void-ab-initio on the ground that since the basis of the appointment does not exist anymore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 28. 28. Sri S.K. Maurya has further submitted that petitioner has been found to have used forged and fabricated disability certificate and, therefore the District Basic Education Officer, while declaring the petitioner’s appointment void-ab-initio has not committed any error under law. It has thus been contended that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, are liable to be dismissed by this Court. FINDINGS: 29. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. For adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Act of 1995 and the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”). Relevant provisions of the Act of 1995 and Rules of 1996 are extracted as under :- Section 2(t) of the Act of 1995: (t) "Person with disability" means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent. of any disability as certified by a medical authority; Section 33 of the Act of 1995: “33. Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- (i) Blindness or low vision; (ii) Bearing impairment; (iii) Loco motor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” Section 39 of the Act of 1995: “39. All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seat for persons with disabilities.” Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996: “4. Authorities to give Disability Certificate:- (1) A Disability Certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central and the Stale Government. All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seat for persons with disabilities.” Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996: “4. Authorities to give Disability Certificate:- (1) A Disability Certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central and the Stale Government. (2) The State Government may constitute a Medical Board consisting of at least three members out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular field for assessing locomotor/Visual including low vision/hearing and speech disability, mental retardation and leprisy cured, as the case may be.” Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996: 5. (1) The Medical Board shall, after due examination, give a permanent Disability Certificate in cases of such permanent disabilities where there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability. (2) The Medical Board shall indicale the period of validity in the certificate, in cases where there is any chance of variation in the degree of disability. (3) No refusal of Disability Certificate shall be made unless an opporwnity is given to the applicant of being heard. (4) On representation by the applicant, the Medical Board may review its decision having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such order in the matter as it thinks fit. 30. The aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1995 clearly demonstrate that any person who is suffering with 40% of any disability certified by the medical authority shall be the “person with disability”. Section 39 of the Act of 1995 provides that all Government Educational Institutions and other Educational Institutions receiving aid from Government shall reserve not less than 3% seats for persons with disability. Section 33 of the Act of 1995 provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3 % for persons or class of persons with disability. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996 provides that disability certificates shall be issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central and the State Government. Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1996 provides that the Medical Board in the cases of permanent disability where there are no chance of variation in the degree of disability shall issue certificate of permanent disability. Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1996 provides that the Medical Board in the cases of permanent disability where there are no chance of variation in the degree of disability shall issue certificate of permanent disability. Rules 5(2) further provides that Medical Board shall indicate the period of validity in the certificate in cases where there is any chance of variation in the degree of disability. The aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1995 read with Rule 4, 5(1) and 5(2) of the Rules of 1996 make it crystal clear that if a person is suffering with more than 40% disability then he is entitled for the reservation provided under the Act of 1995 irrespective of the fact whether the disability is permanent or the disability may be cured over a period of time. Thus it is patently manifest that there may be cases where the person on the date of examination by the Medical Board may be having more than 40% disability but over a period of time due to proper medical treatment his percentage of disability may improve. 31. The petitioner met with a serious accident and on 20.07.2006, she was examined by the duly constituted medical board and thereafter Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad issued Disability Certificate No. 1549 dated 20.07.2006. The aforesaid medical certificate provided that petitioner is suffering with partial permanent disability and percentage of disability is 50 %. Petitioner, on the basis of the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006, was given admission in the Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 against the seat reserved for physically disabled candidates. Petitioner completed her training and she was issued Special B.T.C. Training Certificate on 22.06.2009. On the strength of the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate dated 22.06.2009, petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School on 03.07.2009 and further, petitioner submitted her joining on the post of Assistant Teacher on 06.07.2009. 32. This Court finds that petitioner continued to discharge duties attached to her post since 06.07.2009 till 13.03.2020 and continued to receive salary from the State Exchequer. 33. 32. This Court finds that petitioner continued to discharge duties attached to her post since 06.07.2009 till 13.03.2020 and continued to receive salary from the State Exchequer. 33. It appears that the State Government issued Government Order dated 10.11.2009 whereby decision was taken to ask the candidates appointed on the posts of Assistant Teacher on the basis of disability certificate to appear before the medical board for fresh medical examination as there were certain complaints that various candidates have secured appointment on the posts of Assistant Teacher on the basis of forged and fabricated disability certificates. The Government Order dated 10.11.2009 was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5315 of 2010 but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2010. Thereafter the order dated 31.08.2010 was challenged in Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2010 with the observation that the candidates shall be subjected to fresh medical examination where the disability certificates issued in their favour are found to be forged and fabricated. The State Government challenged order dated 09.09.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 by filing Special Leave Petition (C) 8880 of 2011 and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2016 set aside the order passed in Special Appeal but provided that before taking action against any candidate, he/she shall be issued show cause in the matter and thereafter decision will be taken in accordance with law. 34. After the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Principal, DIET, Harchandpur Kalan, District Etah vide notice dated 15.10.2018 directed the petitioner to appear before the fresh medical board at Lucknow on 14.11.2018. The petitioner was examined by the medical board on 14.11.2018 and thereafter a report has been given that petitioner is suffering with 20% physical disability. 35. This Court finds that in the report/medical certificate dated 14.11.2018, there is no whisper about the disability certificate issued to the petitioner on 20.07.2006 meaning thereby that medical board which examined the petitioner on 14.11.2018 did not consider the earlier disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 and no finding has been recorded that the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 is not a genuine certificate or at the time of issuance of disability certificate dated 20.07.2006, petitioner was not properly examined by the medical board. This Court further finds that the proper course would have been that the medical board while examining the matter of the petitioner on 14.11.2018 must have expressed its opinion on the earlier disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 as this possibility cannot be overruled that after the issuance of disability certificate on 20.07.2006 due to proper medical treatment the percentage of disability of the petitioner may have been improved. It is also worth consideration that the medical board which examined the petitioner on 20.07.2006 was a duly constituted medical board and it is not denied that Disability Certificate No. 1549 dated 20.07.2006 has been issued to the petitioner by the competent authority then unless the subsequent medical board records a finding that the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 either was not a genuine document or was not issued after thorough examination by the experts, there was no occasion for the respondents to hold the petitioner guilty of using forged and fabricated disability certificate for securing her appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 clearly provides that petitioner was suffering from partial permanent disability and the percentage of disability was found to be 50% therefore, there is every possibility that under a proper medical treatment her percentage of disability may have been improved to 20% as such, merely because the percentage of disability has changed in the period of 12 years, that itself does not hold that earlier disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 is a fake and forged document. 36. On the basis of subsequent medical report/certificate dated 14.11.2018, Principal, DIET Harchandpur Kalan, District Etah issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 27.02.2019 wherein it was stated that in the medical examination held on 14.11.2018, petitioner’s physical disability has been found less than 40% therefore, why the Special B.T.C. training certificate issued to the petitioner may not be cancelled for the reason that petitioner secured admission in the B.T.C. training course on the basis of a forged and fabricated disability certificate. The aforesaid show cause notice on its face was absolutely erroneous as petitioner’s disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 has never been declared to be a forged and fabricated document. Petitioner submitted detailed reply on 12.03.2019 wherein it was categorically stated that the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 has never been declared to be forged and fabricated document and therefore, notice is liable to be cancelled. Petitioner submitted detailed reply on 12.03.2019 wherein it was categorically stated that the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 has never been declared to be forged and fabricated document and therefore, notice is liable to be cancelled. It appears from the record that Principal, DIET, Harchandpur Kalan, District Etah did not take any decision pursuant to show cause notice dated 27.02.2019. 37. The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj vide his letter dated 31.10.2019 directed the Principal, DIET, District Etah to register the cancellation of the Special B.T.C. certificate of the petitioner in the register maintained in the DIET on the ground that Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj has taken decision to cancel the petitioner’s Special B.T.C. Training Certificate. This Court finds that neither the Result Committee of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj nor the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj issued any show cause notice to the petitioner nor petitioner’s version has been considered while cancelling petitioner’s Special B.T.C. Training Certificate therefore, the decision of the Result Committee taken in respect of the petitioner and the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj cannot sustain in the eyes of law for simple reason of violation of principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the petitioner’s disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 at no point of time has ever been declared to be a forged and fabricated document and further vide disability certificate dated 20.07.2006, petitioner was declared to be partially permanent disabled and percentage of disability was 50% and therefore this possibility cannot be ruled out that over a period of 12 years due to proper medical treatment, petitioner’s disability may have been improved and as such, in the medical examination report dated 14.11.2018, her disability has been found to be 20%. Once there is no finding that the disability certificate dated 20.07.2006 was not a genuine document or was not issued after proper medical examination, there cannot be any occasion to punish the petitioner even if there has been any error on the part of medical board while issuing disability certificate dated 20.07.2006. 38. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Writ-A No. 2941 of 2020 is allowed. 38. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Writ-A No. 2941 of 2020 is allowed. The decision of the Result Committee regarding cancellation of the Special B.T.C. Training Certificate of the petitioner and the consequential order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj and order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Principal, DIET Harchandpur Kalan, District Etah are quashed. 39. The District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad has passed order dated 13.03.2020 whereby petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been declared to be void-ab-initio only on the ground that her Special B.T.C. Training Certificate has been cancelled vide order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj and order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Principal DIET district Etah. 40. The aforesaid order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad has been challenged by the petitioner in Writ-A No. 8011 of 2020 on various grounds including that such order could not have been passed without instituting proper disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules but since this Court has already quashed the orders dated 31.10.2019 and 22.1.2020, which are the basis of the order dated 13.03.2020 therefore, the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad declaring the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher to be void-ab-initio cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 41. Accordingly, Writ-A No. 8011 of 2020 is allowed. The order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad is quashed. Direction is issued to District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at District Firozabad within three weeks from the date of service of certified copy of this order and to pay her salary regularly. It is further provided that since petitioner has not worked as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School at District Firozabad therefore, she is not entitled for the salary for the period from 13.03.2020 till the date of her reinstatement in service but the aforesaid period shall be counted towards service rendered by the petitioner for all other service benefits.