Allahabad High Court
C/M Indira Gandhi Uchchatar Madhyamik ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 30 November, 2017
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37501 of 2011
Petitioner :- C/M Indira Gandhi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K.Singh,Anil Yadav,G.K.Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav,K.Shahi,Mahendra Upadhyay,Ravi Pratap,V.B.Mishra
And
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20659 of 2012
Petitioner :- C/M Indra Gandhi Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.K. Chand,K.Shahi,Mahendra Upadhyay,Rakesh Pande
And
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3597 of 2015
Petitioner :- Vishnu Shanker Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- K. Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.B. Mishra
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1- Heard Sri Anil Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-A No.37501 of 2011 and Writ-A No.20659 of 2012, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Ved Vyash Mishra, learned counsel for Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, respondent no.5, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, respondent no.2, Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for Vishnu Shankar Singh, respondent no.4 and also heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-A No. 3597 of 2015, the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ved Vyash Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2- Writ Petition no.37501 of 2011 has been filed by the committee of management challenging the order dated 10/14.5.2011 passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, whereby the decision of the Committee of Management terminating the services of Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh, respondent no.4, assistant teacher was not approved observing that all the six charges levelled against the respondent no.4 are general in nature.
3- Writ Petition No.20659 of 2012 has been filed by the Committee of Management challenging the order dated 8.6.2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur for single operation on account of failure of the Committee of Management to submit pay bill of Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh in compliance to the aforesaid order dated 14.5.2011 passed by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad. The petitioner has also sought relief in the nature of mandamus directing the State-respondents to stop payment of salary of respondent no.6, namely, Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh and the recovery of the illegal payments obtained by him by way of salary of the post of assistant teacher in L.T. Grade in the institution in question. A prayer for inquiry against illegal and forged appointment of respondent no.6 has also been made.
4- Writ Petition No.3597 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh, praying to quash the order dated 9.1.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, respondent no.2, whereby, the payment of salary to the petitioner has been stopped in consequence to the interim order dated 10.5.2011 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.37501 of 2011. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the District Inspector of School, Gorakhpur to pay salary to the petitioner as an assistant teacher of the institution in question.
5- Facts in brief are that Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh was appointed as an assistant teacher on 5.7.1991 in the institution,"Indira Gandhi Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jaswal Bazar Rajabari, Gorakhpur". He was suspended by order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Manager of the institution and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. A chargesheet dated 4.3.2010 was served upon him. As per chargesheet, six charges were levelled against him. Charge Nos. 1,2,3 and 5 contained allegation of forgery committed by the aforesaid Vishnu Shankar Singh by submitting forged educational qualification certificates, namely, forged degree of B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri), forged marksheet of M.A. and forged order of regularization of service. The charge no.3 contained the allegation of submission of three different appointment letters filed in different writ petitions, while the charge no.6 contained the allegation of disobedience.
6- No reply to the chargesheet was submitted by the aforesaid Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh. The inquiry committee submitted its report dated 15.3.2010. Consequently, a notice dated 19.3.2010 was issued to the aforesaid assistant teacher Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh requiring him to remain present before the Committee of Management on 27.3.2010 at 8.00 a.m. in the college premises. In the meeting of the committee of management the aforesaid assistant teacher Vishnu Shankar Singh remained absent. The committee of management found that he was not a trained teacher at the time of appointment, his certificate of Shiksha Shastri and marksheets are forged as was found in verification made by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, vide letter No.1/8518/201 dated 4.11.2009. He actually passed M.A. In third division but the marksheet and the degree was manipulated by him showing to have passed M.A. in Second Division. Different appointment letters dated 5.7.1991 and 6.7.1991 were filed by him in different proceedings. He fraudulently prepared his regularization order under the forged signature of the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur. He does not remain present regularly in the institution in question for teaching. It appears that the aforesaid resolution of the committee of management for termination of service of the petitioner, was forwarded to the Board through proper channel for approval.
7- It appears that in the meantime, a complaint was also made to the State Government against the aforesaid assistant teacher Vishnu Shankar Singh in which an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Commissioner-I, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, who submitted the report dated 21.11.2009 holding as under :
(i) There was no vacancy in the institution in question and yet the advertisement dated 5/6th May 1991, was published and that too in a newspaper having negligible circulation;
(ii) In the marksheet produced by the aforesaid assistant teacher Vishnu Shankar Singh before the Selection Committee, the marks obtained in M.A. were shown 55% which is incorrect. The degree of M.A. And B.Ed. as submitted by the assistant teacher, were found to be forged;
(iii) Different contradictory appointment letters were produced ;
(iv) Manipulation has been made in service book;
(v) Irregularities have been committed in the order for payment of salary sanctioning the Selection Grade Pay-scale ;
8- It appears that an inquiry was also conducted in the affairs of the institution in question by the office of the Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad and as per report dated 31.3.1997 large number of illegalities including forgery and forged payments were found. An order dated 15.6.1998 was also passed by the Joint Director of Education-VIIth Region, Gorakhpur on the representation of the aforesaid assistant teacher dated 7.5.1997 and it was held that his appointment is irregular and, therefore, financial approval cannot be granted.
9- The resolution of the Committee of Management terminating the services of the aforesaid assistant teacher Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh, was forwarded through proper channel to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, who declined to grant approval by the impugned order dated 5.5.2011.
10- Aggrieved with this order, the aforesaid writ petition No.37501 of 2011 has been filed. One of the important grounds for proposing termination of services of the petitioner, was forged B.Ed. Degree (Shastri) showing it to have been issued by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The University was directed to produce the original records, which were produced and in presence of the learned counsels for the parties, the records were examined by the Court on 10.5.2012 and an order dated 10.5.2012 was passed as under:
"Original records pertaining to Shiksha Shastri Examination conducted by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi of the year 1985 have been produced today before the Court by the counsel for the University Sri Ved Vyas Mishra, Advocate.
The tabulation register in original has been examined in the presence of the counsel for the University, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent no. 4 by the Court.
It is apparently clear from the same that Roll No. 3346 in respect of the said examination pertains to one Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra s/o Sri Kapileshwar Prasad Mishra and such roll number was not allotted to respondent no. 4, namely Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh.
It is, therefore, established before this Court, at least as on date, that the Shiksha Shastri Examination Degree and Mark-Sheet produced by respondent no. 4 in the matter of his selection for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as well as before the Committee of Management of the institution is a forged document.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that till the next date of listing respondent no. 4 shall not be paid salary without the leave of the Court.
Respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit in both the writ petitions.
The original records are directed to be returned to the Counsel for the University with the direction that a photostat copy of the relevant page of the computation register shall be supplied to the Bench Secretary today itself, which may be kept on record.
List on 09th July, 2012 along with connected matter."
11- Since, the payment was not made in compliance to the order of disapproval passed by the Board in view of the interim order dated 10.5.2010 passed by this Court and as such the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur passed an order dated 28.6.2011 for single operation on account of non submission of salary bill of Shri Vishnu Shankar Singh by the Committee of Management. This order has been challenged in the aforesaid connected writ Petition No.20659 of 2012.
12- The aforesaid Vishnu Shankar Singh has filed the connected Writ Petition No.3597 of 2015, whereby the payment of his salary was stopped as a consequence to the interim order dated 10.5.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.37501 of 2011.
13- Case of the committee of management is that the impugned order of disapproval dated 10/14.5.2011 passed by the Board and the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.6.2011passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, are wholly arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the charges levelled against the aforesaid assistant teacher, were proved based on documentary evidences on record, which clearly established commission of fraud by the aforesaid assistant teacher to obtain the employment. Under the circumstances, the order of disapproval of the Board on the ground that the charges are general in nature, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. For the same reason, the impugned order of single operation dated 28.6.2011 can also not be sustained. The order challenged by the aforesaid assistant teacher in Writ Petition No.3597 of 2015 is merely consequential to the interim order dated 10.5.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.37501 of 2011 and as such the writ petition is itself not maintainable. In any case, if the aforesaid assistant teacher was aggrieved with the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, then he could have either filed a Stay Vacation Application or could have challenged it before the higher forum but the writ petition in such circumstances, is not maintainable. That apart, the said writ petition is wholly devoid of merit, inasmuch as the termination of service of the petitioner is based on consideration of documentary evidences on record.
14- Shri K.Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3597 of 2015 submits as under :
(i) Interim order dated 10.5.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.37501 of 2011 was challenged by the petitioner Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh in Special Appeal No.1064 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 31.5.2012.
(ii) The interim order dated 10.5.2012 was not extended and, therefore, it became inoperative.
(iii) Writ Petition No.5727 of 2009 filed by the committee of management for stopping payment of salary of the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.3.2009.
(iv) Another Writ Petition being Writ-A no.38734 of 2010 (Committee of Management, Indira Gandhi Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Jaswal Bazar, Gorakhpur and another) was filed by the committee of management in which by order dated 7.7.2010, this Court required the committee of management to explain as to how Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh was appointed and how he was permitted to continue in the institution for so many years against a non sanctioned post. The said writ petition is pending.
(v) Another writ petition No.50541 of 2009 was filed by one Sri Ram Kishun Singh alleging himself to be the member of the committee of management, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.9.2009 directing the Director of Education to take appropriate action under section 16-F (10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
(vi) Against that order, the petitioner Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh filed Special Appeal No.1755 of 2009, which was allowed by order dated 11.11.2009.
(vii) The petitioner Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh took admission for B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, and he was issued identity card and admit card for examination 1985. After he passed examination, a mark-sheet was issued on 3.12.1986. In the duplicate copy of mark-sheet issued to one Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra showing same Roll No.3346 for Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed.) for the year 1985 is the ground of allegation that Shiksha Shastri degree of the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh is forged, where as the University could not bring on record the material to show as to when the original marksheet was issued to the aforesaid Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra. Copies of these papers have been filed along with Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 5.4.2017 in Writ Petition No.20659 of 2012, which shows that the mark-sheet of the petitioner is a valid mark-sheet and the allegation of it being forged is totally baseless. Infact, some manipulations have been done in the records of the University, which caused the University to adopt a resolution for an investigation by the C.B.I. Copy of the resolution dated 13.6.2012 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit.
(viii) The name of the petitioner Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh was appearing in the list of candidates who appeared in the examination which list was certified by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 13.12.1998.
(ix) All these facts disclose that the manipulation has been done in the records of the University and based on manipulation the genuine degree of the petitioner Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh has been alleged to be a forged degree.
15- I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel parties and perused the records before me.
16- Mainly the dispute involved in these writ petitions is with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the B.Ed (Shiksha Shastri) degree of the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh, which is alleged to have been obtained in the year 1985.
17- Facts of the case shows that since the year 1997, the genuineness of the degree and the appointment of the petitioner was in question. The special audit report concluded that large scale administrative and financial irregularities were committed in certain institutions including the institution in question.
18- On verification vide letter No. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak-1/8518/2009-10 dated 4.11.2009 from the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, it was found that as per records of the University in examination of Shiksha Shastri 1985, the Roll No.3346 was allotted to one Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, son of Kapileshwar Prasad Mishra and not to the petitioner.
19- On 10.5.2012, tabulation register in original was produced by the University before this Court, which was examined by the Court in presence of the counsel for the University, counsel for the petitioner i.e., committee of management and counsel for respondent no.4, namely, Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh. After examining it, this Court in its order dated 10.5.2012 observed as under :
"The tabulation register in original has been examined in the presence of the counsel for the University, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent no. 4 by the Court.
It is apparently clear from the same that Roll No. 3346 in respect of the said examination pertains to one Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra s/o Sri Kapileshwar Prasad Mishra and such roll number was not allotted to respondent no. 4, namely Sri Vishnu Shankar Singh.
It is, therefore, established before this Court, at least as on date, that the Shiksha Shastri Examination Degree and Mark-Sheet produced by respondent no. 4 in the matter of his selection for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as well as before the Committee of Management of the institution is a forged document.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that till the next date of listing respondent no. 4 shall not be paid salary without the leave of the Court."
Respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit in both the writ petitions".
20- Alongwith Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, dated 24.10.2017, a copy of the minutes of the meeting of examination committee of the University dated 29/30.6.2016 followed by another minutes of the meeting of the examination committee held on 11.8.2017, have been filed. In paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the aforesaid Supplementary Counter Affidavit it has been stated on behalf of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay, Varanasi as under :
"5. That the respondent no.4 is claiming to have passed Shiksha Shastri Examination 1985 with Rule 3346, which has never been allotted to him and the same was allotted to one Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra.
6. That the petitioners, Committee of Management, Indira Gandhi Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaswal Bazar, Rajabari, Gorakhpur, has sent letter dated 5.8.2017 to the Vice Chancellor of the University to re- verify about the academic document of Shiksha relating to Vishnu Shankar Singh (respondent no.4). The aforementioned letterwas placed before the Examination Committee in its meeting dated 11.8.2017 and the committee reasserted its previous decision taken in its meeting dated 29.6.2016. In its meeting dated 11.8.2017 committee has considered the matter in detail and has also taken a note of various orders of this Hon'ble Court. The committee has come the conclusion that the respondent no.4 has tried to mislead the University as well as this Hon'ble Court and took decision to lodge First Information Report. A copy of the relevant extract of the decision of the examination committee dated 11.8.2017 and 29.6.2016 are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure no. S.C.A.-1 and S.C.A.-2 to this affidavit."
21- Perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the examination committee dated 29.6.2016, shows that it was convened to examine the genuineness of the degree of Shri Vishnu Shankar Singh, pursuant to the letters of the Chancellor dated 23.5.2013, 23.3.2015 and the representation of the petitioner dated 25.5.2015 submitted as per order of this Court dated 21.5.2015 in Special Appeal No.330 of 2015. The committee so constituted was consisted of eight members headed by the Vice Chancellor as Chairman. The committee recorded its conclusion as under :
"nksuksa izfr ewy lkj.kh;u (Crosslist) iaftdkvksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd iwoZ esa fnukad 06-12-2013 rFkk fnukad 26-08-2015 dks vf/kdkfj;ksa dh tkap esa tks fu"d"kZ fudyk Fkk] mlls ;g tkap lfefr 'krizfr'kr lger gSaA tkap vk[;k fnukad 07&06&2016 ¼layXud&20½ dqyifr }kjk fnukad 10-06-016 dks mi;qZDr tkap&lfefr dh vk[;k ij dqylfpo dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd lexz izdj.k dks laKku esa ysdj tkap fjiksVZ ds ifjizs{; esa fVIi.kh izLrqr dh tk;A dqyifr ds mi;qZDr funsZ'kkuqlkj fo".kq 'kadj flag ds lEcU/k esa dbZ lEHkkoukvksa ds lkFk ewy dzklfyLV ds voyksdu dh vis{kk dqyifr ls dh x;hA dqyifr }kjk dqylfpo dks ewy vfHkys[k miyC/k djkus gsrq ijh{kk fu;a=d dks i=koyh vxszf"kr dj nhA Jh flag ls lEcfU/kr ewy lhy cUn vfHkys[k iwoZ esa ;k rks dqyifr ,oa vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k vFkok tkap lfefr ds le{k gh [kksyk x;k Fkk fdUrq ijh{kk lfefr ds le{k dHkh ugh [kksyk x;k x;kA pwafd izdj.k ijh{kk ls Hkh lEcfU/kr gSA vr% ijh{kk fu;a=d us izLrkfor fd;k fd ewy dzklfyLV dks ijh{kk lfefr dh cSBd esa izLrqr dj dqy lfpo dks Hkh vkeaf=r dj dzklfyLV dk voyksdu djk fn;k tk;A ijh{kk fu;a=d ds bl izLrko ij dqyifr }kjk fnukad 24-06-2016 dks ijh{kk lfefr vkgwr djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k ¼layXud&21½A rnuqlkj cSBd vkgwr djus dh lwpuk izdkf'kr dh x;h ¼layXud&22½ fdUrq dqylfpo ds U;k;y;h; dk;Zo'k bykgkckn tkus ds dkj.k cSBd LFkfxr dj nh x;hA blh dze esa dqylfpo ls ijh{kk lfefr vkgwr djus dh frfFk o le; izkIr dj fnukad 29-06-2016 dks vijkg~.k 02-00 cts ls ijh{kk lfefr dh cSBd vkgwr dh x;hA¼layXud&23½ ijh{kk lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 29-06-2016 dk dk;Zo`Rr ijh{kk lfefr dh cSBd esa ;g laKku esa yk;k x;k fd& 1- f'k{kk'kkL=h 1985 ds lexz rF;ksa dh xgu tkap ,oa ijh{k.k dj vfUre :i ls oS/k ,oa izekf.kd vfHkys[k rS;kj djus ds fy, dk;Zifj"kn }kjk fnukad 30-12-1998 dks izks0 ujsUnz ukFk ik.Ms;] izks0 jktho jatu flag] MkW0 nqxkZuUnu frokjh rFkk midqylfpo ¼ijh{kk½ dh tkap lfefr xfBr dh x;hA 2- dk;Zifj"kn }kjk xfBr tkap lfefr us leLr rF;ksa dh xgurk ls tkap@ijh{k.k djds viuh tkap vk[;k@vfUre :i ls dzklfyLV ds :i esa fnukad 21-05-1999 dks vfHkizekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA 3- mDr lfefr }kjk izLrqr tkap vk[;k@ijh{kkQy esa Hkh vuqdzekad 3346 ij v'kksd dqekj feJ iq= Jh dfiys'oj feJ dk ijh{kkQy oS/k ik;k x;k FkkA ijh{kk lfefr dh cSBd esa dqylfpo dh mifLFkfr esa Jh fo".kq 'kadj flag ls lEcfU/kr nksuksa izfr ewy lhYM dzklfyLV lfefr ds le{k [kksyk x;kA dqylfpo }kjk nksuksa izfr dzklfyLV vuqdzekad 3346 ds i`"B ij vafdr Nk= uke o vU; izfof"V dk xgurk ls ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkSj ik;k x;k fd nksuksa izfr ewy dzklfyLV ds i`"B ij vuqdzekad 3346 ds lEeq[k fcuk fdlh dfVax o NsMNkM+ ds Li"V :i ls v'kksd dqekj feJ iq= Jh dfiys'oj feJ dk uke vkfn isszl }kjk eqfnzr gS u fd feVkdj Vkbi fd;k x;k gS ¼layXud&24½ blh dze esa ewy dzklfyLV dh iqu% xgurk ls tkap ,oa ijh{k.k gsrq dk;Zifj"kn dh cSBd fnukad 30-12-1998 }kjk izks0 ujsUnz ukFk ik.Ms;] izks0 jktho jatu flag] MkW0 nqxkZuUnu frokjh dh xfBr tkap lfefr }kjk viuh tkap vk[;k ds :i esa nh x;h dzklfyLV fnukad 21-05-1999 dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl iw.kZr% ysfeusVsM dzklfyLV esa Hkh ewy dzklfyLV ds leku gh vuqdzekad 3346 ij Nk= uke o vU; izfof"V ik;h x;h ¼layXud&25½ rRi'pkr Jh flag }kjk vius izR;kosnu fnukad 20-02-2016 o fnukad 23-06-2016 esa layXu f'k{kk'kkL=h ijh{kk o"kZ 1985 ds vuqdzekad 3346 ds izos'k i= dh izfrgLrk{kfjr nksuksa Nk;kizfr;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ¼layXud&26]27½A nksuksa Nk;kizfr izos'ki= ds voyksdu esa ijh{kk lfefr us vR;Ur xEHkhj vlekurk,a ik;haA ,d gh ijh{kk dk ,d gh O;fDr dk nks vyx&vyx izos'ki= ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd Jh flag vius i{k esa QthZ lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blh dze esa Jh flag }kjk vius i{k esa Jh mek'kadj ;kno ds gLrk{kj ls fn;s x;s 'kiFki= fnukad 17-07-2013 ¼layXud&12½ dks Jh mek'kadj ;kno us vius 'kiFki= fnukad 10-01-2014 ¼layXud&13½ esa QthZ gLrk{kj ls fn;k x;k QthZ 'kiFki= izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd Jh flag vius i{k esa QthZ lk{; izLrqr fd;s gSA blh dze esa Jh flag }kjk Jh fQjrw ik.Ms; ds i= izkfIr gLrk{kj ds Åij dwV jpuk dj vius i{k esa fVIi.kh fy[kk@ fy[kok;k x;k gS tks fd Jh fQjrw ik.Ms; }kjk fn;s x;s Li"Vhdj.k ¼layXud&15½ ls Hkh izekf.kr gSA ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd Jh flag vius i{k esa QthZ lk{; izLrqr fd;s gSA blh dze esa Jh flag }kjk izLrqr vadi= ds lEcU/k esa rRdkyhu vadi= ys[kd Jh fxjh'k dqekj ikBd }kjk fn;s x;s Li"Vhdj.k ¼layXud&08½ ls Hkh izekf.kr gks pqdk gS fd Jh flag }kjk vius i{k esa QthZ lk{; izLrqr fd;s gSA bl izdkj Jh fo".kq 'kadj flag }kjk f'k{kk'kkL=h ijh{kk o"kZ 1985 ds vuqdzekad 3346 ds lkis{k miif/k i= izkIr djus ds fy, vius i{k esa izLrqr fd;s x;s dwV jfpr@QthZ lk{;ksa rFkk fnukad 06-12-2013 fnukad 26-08-2015 rFkk tkap lfefr dh vk[;k 10-6-2016 esa nh x;h vk[;k ,oa nksuksa izfr ewy dzklfyLV o tkap lfefr }kjk vfHkizekf.kr iw.kZ :i ls ysfeusVsM dzklfyLV ds voyksdu ,oa ijh{k.k ds vkyksd esa ijh{kk lfefr }kjk loZlEefr ls fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS fd bl izdj.k dh iwoZ esa dh x;h tkap ls izkIr vk[;kvksa ls viuh lgefr izdV djrs gq, Jh fo".kq 'kadj flag dk izR;kosnu iks"k.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k vfUre :i ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh lfefr ;g Hkh fu.kZ; ysrh gS fd vkt dh cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] egkefge dqykf/kifr lfpoky; rFkk vU; lEcfU/kr fudk;@O;fDr dks Hkh voxr djk fn;k tk;A ;r% bl izdj.k ij fo'ofo|ky; }kjk dbZ ckj tkap rFkk cSBds dh tk pqdh gSA vr% Hkfo"; esa bl izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa Jh fo".kq 'kadj flag dk dksbZ Hkh izR;kosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gksxkA g0viBuh; g0viBuh; g0viBuh;
29@6@16 29-6-16 29-06-2016
¼izks0 O;kl feJ½ ¼izks0 vk'kqrks"k feJ½ ¼izks0 'khryk izlkn mik/;k;½
osnosnkax ladk;k/;{k lkfgR; laLd`fr ladk;k/;{k n'kZu ladk;k/;{k
lnL;] ijh{kk lfefr lnL;] ijh{kk lfefr lnL;] ijh{kk lfefr
g0viBuh; g0viBuh; g0viBuh;
29@6@16 29@6@16 29-6-16
¼izks0 isze ukjk.k flag½ ¼MkW0 ,l0 ,u0 flag½ ¼MkW0 jktukFk½
vk/kqfud Kku foKku ladk;k/;{k vk;qosZn ladk;k/;{k ijh{kk fu;a=d
lnL;] ijh{kk lfefr lnL;] ijh{kk lfefr lnL;] ijh{kk lfefr
g0viBuh; g0viBuh;
29-6-16 29-06-16
¼Jh izHkk"k f}osnh½ ¼izks0 ;nqukFk izlkn nwcs½
dqylfpo dqyifr
¼fo'ks"k vkeaf=r½ v/;{k] ijh{kk lfefr
Jh fo".kq 'kadj flag us dwV jfpr lk{;@vfHkys[k izLrqr dj fo'ofo|ky; dks Hkh xqejkg djus dk Hkjiwj iz;kl fd;k gSA vr% ijh{kk lfefr ;g laLrqfr djrh gS fd fo'ofoky; dks Hkh Jh flag }kjk dh x;h tkylkth o dwV jpuk ds fy;s muds fo:) izFkfedh ntZ djkrs gq, mfpr n.MkRed dk;Zokgh djsA 22- That apart, the fact of manipulation in M.A. Mark-sheet/degree is also indicative of mal-practices adopted by the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh in obtaining employment.
23- In the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs. Union of India and another, (2012) 6 SCC 613 (paras 323, 331) Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of adoption of colourable devices and held as under:
"323. McDowell has emphatically spoken on the principle of Tax Planning. Ranganath Mishra, J. on his and on behalf of three other Judges, after referring to the observations of S.C. Shah, J. in CIT v. A. Raman and Co. AIR 1968 SC 49, CIT v. B. M. Kharwar (1969) 1 SCR 651, the judgments in Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. CIT, (1940) 8 ITR 522, Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, Bombay AIR 1959 SC 270; CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai (1973) 3 SCC 17 and the views expressed by Viscount Simon in Latilla v. IRC, (1943) AC 377 : 25 TC 107 (HL) stated as follows:
(McDowell and Co. Ltd. V. CTO, (1985) 3 SCC 230, SCC pp.254-55, para 45) "45. Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges."
331. Reddy, J., we have already indicated, himself has stated that he is entirely agreeing with Mishra, J. and has only supplemented what Mishra, J. has stated on tax avoidance, therefore, we have to go by what Mishra, J. has spoken on tax avoidance. Reddy, J. has depreciated (sic deprecated) the practice of setting up of tax avoidance projects, in our view, rightly because the same is/was the situation in England and Ramsay (W.T.) Ltd. v. IRC, 1982 AC 300 and other judgments had depreciated the tax avoidance schemes. In our view, the ratio of the judgment is what is spoken by Mishra, J. for himself and on behalf of three other judges, on which Reddy, J. has agreed. Reddy, J. has clearly stated that he is only supplementing what Mishra, J. has said on Tax avoidance."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
24. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. B. Rajendra Singh and others, JT 2000(3) SC.151, considering the consequences of fraud, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 3 as under :
"Fraud and justice never dwell together". (Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper overall these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judegment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything"(Lazarus Estate Ltd. V. Beasley 1956(1)QB 702).
(Emphasis supplied by me)
25. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others, 2003(8) SCC 319, Hon'ble Supreme Court defined fraud and considered the effect of fraud and misrepresentation and held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 37 as under :
"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
18.A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.
25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res-judicata.
37. It will bear repetition to state that any order obtained by practising fraud on court is also non-est in the eyes of law."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
26. In the case of S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 7 as under :
"7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
27. In the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact of appointment obtained by fraud and held in para 29.1 to 29.10 as under :
"29.1 Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
29.2 Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
29.3 When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
29.4 A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
29.5 Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
29.6 The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
29.7 The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
29.8 An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
29.9 An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
29.10The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
28. Similar principles with regard to fraud have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JT 2005(6) SC 391, para 7 to 15, JT 2007(4) SC 186, para 19 to 39, JT 2009(9) SC 365, para 22 and 23, JT 2008 (3) SC 452, para 12.3 to 15, JT 2009(5) SC 278, para 13 to 18 and 28 and JT 2008(8) SC 57.
29. Thus, the law in case of appointment obtained fraudulently is well settled. Fraudulently obtained order of appointment or approval can be recalled by the authority concerned. In such cases merely because the employee continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of fraudulently obtained order, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppal against the employer/ authority. When appointment or approval has been obtained by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It would create no equity in his favour or any estoppal against the employer to cancel such appointment or approval since "Fraud and justice never dwell together."
30- The facts and legal position as discussed above shows that the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution in question was obtained by the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh on the basis of forged degree of B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) and, therefore, the impugned order dated 10/14.5.2011 passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, disapproving the resolution of the committee of management for terminating the services of the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh, cannot be sustained and is, therefore, quashed.
31- For the same reasons, the impugned order dated 28.6.2011 in Writ Petition No.20659 of 2012 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, cannot be sustained and is, therefore, quashed.
32- The Writ Petition No.3597 of 2015 (Vishnu Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 others ) filed by the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh for quashing the order dated 9.1.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, in consequence to the interim order dated 10.5.2012 in Writ Petition No.37501 of 2011 is without substance. The writ petition itself was not maintainable.
33- In view of the aforesaid, Writ-A No.37501 of 2011 and Writ-A No. 20659 of 2012 are allowed. The orders impugned therein are quashed. The Writ-A No.3597 of 2015 is dismissed.
34- It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner Vishnu Shankar Singh to pursue his representation said to have been filed before the Chancellor against the decision/resolution of The Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay, Varanasi dated 29.6.2016.
Order Date :- 30.11.2017 Ak/