Allahabad High Court
Sri Brajesh Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 June, 2022
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Delivered on 19.5.2022 Reserved on 20.6.2022 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16080 of 2008 Petitioner :- Sri Brajesh Kumar And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogish Kumar Saxena,Arvind Srivastava Iii,Bhaiya Ram Maurya,K. Ajit,M.K.Tiwari,P.K Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Khare,R.P.Singh,Ram Autar Verma,Siddharth Khare Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III and Sri Ram Krishna, learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 19.5.2007 passed by respondent no.2, Director/ Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, whereby the selection and appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher in Janta Junior High School, Jasanpur, Rajwara, Mainpuri, has been held to be approved on the basis of fabricated order of approval of District Basic Education Officer dated 06.7.2004. Further prayer has been made for the direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners from month to month and their arrears in accordance with law.
The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were appointed Assistant Teachers in the above noted institution as per procedure prescribed and due approval of their appointments was granted by the District Basic Education Officer on 06.7.2004. The institution was brought under the grant-in-aid list on 07.9.2006 and their names were forwarded by Manager of the institution in managerial return to the authorities. The Head Master of the institution submitted different list of employees by way of another managerial return, which was rejected by the Regional Level Committee. Even after rejection of the managerial return submitted by the Head Master of the institution, the salary of the petitioners was not paid. Hence they approached before this Court by way of Writ-A No. 14244 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.3.2007 directing the Director of Education (Basic) to ensure that the validly appointed teacher are paid their salary. By the impugned order dated 19.5.2007, Director/ Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, has turned down the claim of the petitioner for the payment of salary on the ground that the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Agra Region, Agra, by his letter dated 11.5.2007 had referred to the approval order of Sri Raghuvir Singh, the then District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, who has denied his signatures on the order of approval of appointments of the petitioners dated 6.7.2004.
On 29.1.2015, this Court passed the following orders calling for the original record to ascertain correct the facts:-
''The dispute revolves around genuineness of the letter dated 6.7.2004, allegedly issued by the then Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri according approval to the appointment of the petitioners. It is admitted in paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 29.5.2014 that the original order dated 6.7.2004 is on record.
Learned counsels for petitioners point out that the photostat copy of order as brought on record alongwith the counter affidavit dated 4.2.2010 is different from the copy of same order dated 6.7.2004, brought on record by means of second supplementary counter affidavit dated 29.5.2014. It is submitted that the report of forensic laboratory obtained by the respondents is based on manipulated copy of the order dated 6.7.2004 and thus, cannot be relied upon.
Looking to the nature of controversy, it has become necessary to look into the original records to ascertain the correct facts.
Sri R. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 is not present though the matter is taken up in the revised call. In such circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to serve copy of this order on him to enable him to ensure that the original records relating to the controversy are produced before this Court on 23rd February, 2015.
List on 23rd February, 2015.' Thereafter, adjournments were taken on number of dates and finally, learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the original approval order passed by Sri Raghuvir Singh, District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, report of Vidhi Vighyan Prayogshala, U.P., dated 22.5.2014 alongwith specimen signatures of Sri Raghuvir Singh and few other documents duly signed by him in original in Court today, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially the respondents denied that they are not in possession of the original copy of the disputed approval order dated 06.7.2004 of Sri Raghuvir Singh, District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, and a photocopy of the aforesaid order was sent to the Forensic Laboratory. In the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 7.9.2013 filed on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, it has been stated that forensic expert has informed that xerox copy of the disputed document does not seems to be disputed regarding the signatures thereon, but for submitting the report, original document is required alongwith sample signatures of Sri Raghuvir Singh. Sri Raghuvir Singh has been sent letter dated 13.8.2013, but he has not responded till date for submitting his specimen signatures.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the photocopy of the approval order dated 06.7.2004 brought on record as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 4.2.2010 filed on behalf of respondent no.4 stating that this document was sent to the Forensic Laboratory initially and the Forensic Laboratory although found the signature of Rughuvir Singh as genuine on the document, but stated that for the purpose of giving final opinion the original document is required. He has submitted that thereafter the respondents have concocted another approval order dated 06.7.2004, which was sent to the Forensic Laboratory and report has been submitted thereon by the expert stating that the signatures on the original document dated 06.7.2004 do not match with the specimen signatures of the Sri Raghuvir Singh, the then District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri.
This Court has perused the original record produced by the leaned Standing Counsel and it finds that the photocopy of the document dated 6.7.2004 brought on record as Annexure No. CA-2 is different from the original document, purportedly sent to the Forensic Laboratory by the respondents. The spacing of the lines in both the documents is different. The letter No.1658 mentioned in both the documents is not in the same fashion. Similarly in the photocopy of the documents brought on record as Annexure No. CA-2 there is difference in spacing of the lines where signature of Sri Raghuvir Singh has been made. In the Annexure CA-2 signature is extending upwards to 45 degrees, but in the original document produced before this Court, signature extends upward only about 30 degrees. There is difference in the manner of date written in both the documents. The specimen signatures of Sri Raghuvir Singh are not found to be tallying in both the documents. He has made totally different signature on the purported original document produced before this Court than that on the photocopy. The documents bearing his signature, which were sent to expert for the purpose of matching signature, are also different from the specimen signatures of Raghuvir Singh and hence report of the Forensic Laboratory was bound to be in negative regarding the original document dated 6.7.2004 produced before this Court. The respondents did not had original document in their possession, when the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 7.9.2013 was filed before this Court and they had sent the photocopy of the same to which the forensic expert earlier whereon the expert gave opinion that signature in question does not seems to be disputed, but from the xerox copy, it is difficult for the Laboratory to verify the same in the absence of original documents. This averment has been made in paragraph no.6 of the aforesaid second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4. Thereafter it appears that the respondents have concocted an order dated 6.7.2004 and got the Forensic report thereon. In the specimen signatures of Sri Raghuvir Singh, he has made absolutely different signatures from the one made on the photocopy of the document and also allegedly concocted document dated 6.7.2004.
This Court finds that the respondents have resorted to creation of a fabricated document only to justify their case before this Court. This is very unfortunate. Number of departmental employees and officers must be involved in this exercise. To dissuade such acts in future, this Court directs that the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow, shall look into the entire exercise of fabrication of document dated 6.7.2004 and initiate departmental proceedings against all found involved in the exercise of misleading the Court and defeating the rights of petitioners.
The impugned order dated 19.5.2007 passed by respondent no.2, Director/ Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, is hereby quashed.
The respondent no.4, District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, is directed to ensure that the arrears of salary of the petitioners from the date of approval order dated 6.4.2004 alongwith 7.5% interest is paid to them, within six weeks and their month to month salary shall be paid w.e.f., 01.8.2022. All the petitioners are entitled to litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- each.
In case this order is not complied within time, petitioners shall become entitled to 12% simple interest on the amount due. The State Government shall be free to recover 4.5% additional interest from the public servant/servants, who is/are found responsible for the delay.
The photostat copies of all the documents produced before this Court by the Standing Counsel shall be kept on record and thereafter the Standing Counsel shall be given back the original documents.
The writ petition is allowed with costs.
Order Date :- 20.6.2022 Ruchi Agrahari