Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reliance is placed on 2009(4) CLT 63 and 2010 CHN 98 for the proposition that a person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved and the benefit of the principles of presumption of innocence ought to have been extended to the appellant. Reliance is also placed on 2005(2) SCC 746.

Counsel for the private respondents submits that clause 44 of the 2001 Guidelines specifically provides that the progress of the program is to be personally monitored by the SDOs. The executive officer of the Panchayet Samity and block level nodal officer, SSK are the responsible persons for supervision of the said program. Therefore, if there was any irregularity in running the Siksha Kendra, a complaint ought to have been made to the persons mentioned above. As there is no grievance addressed to the persons as per clause 44 of the 2001 Guidelines, the writ petition was rightly dismissed. Clause 29(iii) deals only with the required educational qualification of candidates. The candidates were called for an interview which is an admitted fact and has been admitted by the appellant in the writ petition. At such interview the private respondent spoke fluently while the appellant stammered. Therefore, the authority were justified in not giving appointment to the appellant as no person who stammers can be appointed as a teacher. G.R. Case no. 248/2004 was pending during the selection process in 2007 and this was a valid ground for rejecting the appellant's candidature. At the time of evaluation the Madhyamik and Higher Secondary marks were also to be evaluated and the appointment to the candidates could not have been given only on the basis of being an Honours graduate. Pendency of the criminal case was a material fact suppressed. Therefore, the authorities were justified in not appointing the appellant. As the Guidelines does not bar consideration of the Madhyamik and Higher Secondary marks and in view of the suppression of material fact, viz. the criminal proceedings, the order dated 16.12.2011 be affirmed. Each case is to be considered on its own facts and 2010(4) CHN 98 is distinguishable on facts from the present case, therefore, the principle of presumption of innocence will not apply to the facts of the case.

Stress has been laid on the call for interview letter by the private respondent. From a reading of the said letter, it will appear that although the subject was letter for interview but all that was required to be done by the candidates was to appear before the selection committee with all testimonials and with the original copy of such testimonials on a particular date. By the said letter the MSK did not inform the candidates that a viva test would be conducted. In fact, the Guidelines also do not make any provision for holding of a viva. Therefore, the submission of the private respondent that the appellant stammered at the interview cannot be accepted. More so, as each candidate would be interviewed separately and none of the candidates would be aware of what transpired at the interview of each candidate. The verification as regards this aspect of stammering at the interview in the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 9 has been verified as true to knowledge. This again could not have been within the knowledge of the private respondent. Therefore, this argument of stammering made by the Counsel for the private respondent can not be accepted.