Allahabad High Court
Ramphal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 2 April, 2010
Author: A.P. Sahi
Bench: A.P. Sahi
1
Court No.26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45288 of 2006
Ramphal Vs. State of U.P. and others
****
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J The petitioner has come up questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Director of Education (Higher) dated 8.6.2006 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) on the ground that the petitioner's claim for being considered against the post in question under reserved category has been wrongly decided.
The facts in brief are that the institution is a Degree College and is managed and run by the State Government. According to the sanction letter dated 18.11.1996, there are 3 posts of Peon in the institution out of which 2 are meant to be filled up from the unreserved category and one post has to be filled up under the reserved category of Schedule Caste. The petitioner belongs to the said category. He contends that the other 2 posts have already been filled and, therefore, the third post has to be offered to Schedule Caste candidates. There are no details given in the writ petition as to who are the other occupants of the other two posts, nonetheless the petitioner moved a representation alleging that against this third post, he had been offered appointment on 2.5.2005. This appointment letter is alleged to have been issued by the then Principal of the institution, who was the appointing authority namely Smt. Shanti Devi.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had received salary against the said appointment for a couple of months. Thereafter, the salary was not paid and when the petitioner proceeded to make an inquiry, he was not given a satisfactory reply where after he filed representations.
The petitioner, thereafter, appears to have made a two fold challenge to the aforesaid refusal of payment of salary to the petitioner, primarily basing his claim on the appointment letter dated 2.5.2005. The Director of Education (Higher) proceeded to examine the said claim and by his finding recorded, after assessing and sifting the facts, held 2 that the petitioner had taken recourse to forgery and had produced a fake letter of appointment dated 2.5.2005. This was also cross verified from the then Principal Smt. Shanti Devi, who has clearly denied the issuance of such a letter and it has been stated that the letter has been forged by the petitioner to suit his own purpose.
The Director, therefore, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was never appointed in the institution and, therefore, his claim which was primarily founded on the said appointment letter deserves to be rejected.
Learned counsel contends that even if the aforesaid claim has been rejected yet the fact remains that the post in question ought to have been offered to a reserved category candidate as per the sanction order. In this regard, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it is admitted that the respondent No.4 - Manoj Kumar Tiwari was offered appointment under the physically handicapped category for which directions were issued by the Director of Education in view of the Government Order extending the benefit of reservation to the physically handicapped category candidates. It is, thus, evident that the appointment of the respondent No.4 has been made in the physically handicapped category. The petitioner does not belong to that category. Even if a post is offered to a reserved category candidate, the petitioner does not fulfil the aforesaid criteria and, therefore, such a relief so far as the petitioner is concerned, even otherwise on the second count cannot be granted.
Since the petitioner has taken recourse to forgery and has produced a fake letter of appointment, this conduct cannot encourage the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner.
For the reasons given aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Dt. 2.4.2010 Irshad