Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pooja Rani vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 26 March, 2021
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14561 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Singh,Lalta Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Sanjay Chaturvedi Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, Shri Durga Singh, Advocate, representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District-Ballia was produced the application form and the different mark-sheets of the petitioner in a sealed cover. The sealed cover has opened in the Court in presence of the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.
It is apparent from a perusal of the application form of the petitioner that she had indicated in the application form that she had got 393 marks out of 500 marks in her intermediate examination. The photocopy of the intermediate mark-sheet produced before the Court shows that the petitioner had got only 293 marks out of 500 marks in her intermediate examination.
The error of the petitioner in her application form affected the inter-se merit between the different candidates and even if it is admitted that the petitioner had produced the genuine mark-sheet before the Selection Committee, it is apparent that the tabulation chart was wrongly prepared and the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of erroneous indexing.
In the circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner was de-hors the relevant rules.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District-Ballia terminating the services of the petitioner and the prayer in the writ petition challenging the order dated 25.11.2020 so far as it relates to termination of the services of the petitioner is rejected.
It was further argued by counsel for the petitioner that services of the petitioner had been terminated from the date of the impugned order and, therefore, no recovery can be made for payment of past services.
The matter so far as it relates to recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioner requires consideration.
Counsel for the respondents may file their counter affidavit only on the issue regarding recovery of the payments already made to the petitioner within eight weeks. The petitioner shall have four weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.
Connect with Writ-A No. 9457 of 2020 and list immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Meanwhile, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 25.11.2020.
The original application form of the petitioner and the different documents handed over to the Court in a sealed cover have been returned to Shri Durga Singh, representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District-Ballia.
Order Date :- 26.3.2021 Anurag/-