Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Per contra, the learned counsel Shri Ankit Katriar, appearing for the respondent State has submitted that it appears from the record that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982-83 as an Assistant Teacher in the Government Basic School by Shri B.L. Azim, the then Regional Deputy Director, Saran on the basis of his matric trained qualification subject to approval from the District Level Establishment Committee. Subsequently, in the year 1982-83, the Assistant Teachers appointed by Shri B.L. Azim were removed from the services after serving one month notice declaring their appointments to be irregular, hence the petitioner was also removed from his services. The affected teachers had moved this Hon'ble Court against the order of their dismissal, however, the same was Patna High Court CWJC No.1906 of 2015 dt.12-09-2019 rejected. However, the affected teachers had moved the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed to reinstate the said teachers till the fresh selection process is complete. In fact, since the learned Lokayukta had also given directions to the State authorities to examine the genuineness of the testimonials and certificates of all the teachers appointed by Shri B.L. Azim, the then Regional Deputy Director, after the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers were reinstated in service in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, had sent the self attested copies of B.Ed. Certificates of such teachers including that of the petitioner for verification to the concerned college, whereupon the B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner was found forged as is apparent from the letter dated 14.07.2008 and 19.09.2008 issued by the Examination Controller, Din Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, U.P. wherein it has been clearly mentioned that no such candidate by the name of the petitioner was ever admitted in the B.Ed. Course and the said University has not issued any such certificate to the petitioner herein. The said letters have also been annexed as Annexure-R/2 & R/3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Patna High Court CWJC No.1906 of 2015 dt.12-09-2019 case of the petitioner is outrightly a case of appointment on the basis of forged certificate. In view of the respondent authorities receiving the verification report, the services of such teachers whose certificates were found forged, were terminated and as far as the petitioner is concerned, his services was terminated vide Memo dated 13.08.2008 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 18050 of 2008, which has ultimately stood dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 30.03.2012 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Unfortunately, the petitioner had stood reinstated in service on account of contempt having been filed by similarly situated employees and strict orders having been passed by the contempt court for compliance of the order in question.

It is the specific case of the respondent-State that in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as reiterated by this Court in L.P.A. No. 448 of 2009, the respondent-State authorities had published advertisement in the daily newspaper 'Hindustan' on 24.11.2009, for completing the selection process, and the petitioner was also called for interview, which was conducted from 16.11.2009 to 20.11.2009. The petitioner had also appeared in the interview but he failed to produce any training certificate obtained by him prior to his Patna High Court CWJC No.1906 of 2015 dt.12-09-2019 appointment, though there was a categorical stipulation in the advertisement that all the candidates must bring their testimonials including training certificate for verification, which they have obtained prior to their appointment. Thereafter, on completion of the interview, the Divisional Establishment Committee considered the case of the petitioner and others and in its meeting dated 21.01.2010 found and held the petitioner to be not holding the requisite qualification of training at the time of appointment in the year 1982-83 as also held that the petitioner had committed a fraud in obtaining appointment and his appointment had been made de hors the stipulations and provisions contained in the Departmental Notification No. 2749 dated 11.11.1975, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was held to be illegal, fraudulent and fabricated, thus the Divisional Establishment Committee decided not to select and appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the basic school, whereafter the petitioner was found not liable to be paid any retiral dues vide Memo No. 786 dated 25.05.2011.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. The only ground urged before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since no order has been passed dismissing the petitioner herein from his services prior to him attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2010, the impugned order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.1906 of 2015 dt.12-09-2019 07.05.2011 could not have been passed. This Court is of the view that since it is the specific stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit that in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in S.L.P. No. 4746-50/86 (Kedar Giri & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors.), S.L.P. No. 12061-70-86 (Diwakar Tiwari & ors. vs. The State of Bihar & ors.), as also the order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 448 of 2019, directing the respondent authorities to complete the selection process, the respondents had rightly taken appropriate steps by publishing an advertisement in the daily newspaper 'Hindustan' on 24.11.2009, whereupon the petitioner had also appeared in the interview, whereafter the Divisional Establishment Committee had considered the case of the petitioner and others and in its meeting held on 21.01.2010, had found and held that the petitioner was not holding requisite qualification of training at the time of appointment in the year 1982-83 and had fraudulently obtained appointment against the provisions contained in Departmental Notification No. 2749 dated 11.11.1975. In this backdrop, the Divisional Establishment Committee, finding the appointment of the petitioner to be forged, fabricated and illegal, had decided not to appoint the Patna High Court CWJC No.1906 of 2015 dt.12-09-2019 petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the basic school in its meeting dated 21.01.2010. Therefore, since the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed for continuance of such teachers till fresh selections are made, the appointment of the petitioner had come to an end automatically, consequent upon the decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee taken in its meeting dated 21.01.2010, wherein it had been decided not to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher.