Allahabad High Court
Kumari Gita Devi (In Wria 2361 Of 2022) vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 83 of 2022 Appellant :- Kumari Gita Devi (In Wria 2361 Of 2022) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education , Civil Secrt. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Anurag Kumar Singh,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
(Order on application for condonation of delay) Having regard to the facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the special appeal, delay is condoned and the application is allowed.
(Order on memo of Appeal) Heard learned counsel for appellant, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Lucknow University.
Under challenge in this intra-court appeal is the judgment and order dated 05.05.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.2361 of 2022 preferred by the appellant-petitioner, has been dismissed.
The appellant-petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 10.08.2010, however, by means of the order dated 08.02.2022, the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi has cancelled her appointment on the ground that educational testimonials/documents submitted by her were found to be fabricated.
While dealing with the challenge to the order dated 08.02.2022, learned Single Judge had summoned the record from the Lucknow University and after perusal of the same, a finding has been returned by the learned Single Judge that the roll number against which the appellant-petitioner claims to have appeared in B.A.-IIIrd year Examination for the year 2004 was never allotted to her. Learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding on perusal of record that the roll number against which the petitioner is said to have appeared for B.Ed course in the year 2005 was not allotted to her but to one Manoj Kumar. Learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that the appellant-petitioner had procured her appointment on forged and fabricated documents.
It is not a case of termination of service or dismissal or removal of appellant-petitioner after departmental inquiry; rather it is a case where appointment of the appellant-petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of proven fact that she had procured her appointment on the basis of forged documents. To examine the veracity of the said fact, learned Single Judge himself perused the record and thereafter recorded a finding against the appellant-petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find it a fit case for interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge.
The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Renu/-