The appellant has come up against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in relation to her claim for continuance as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School having obtained training of B.T.C. Course as a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
The facts as unfolded in the records demonstrates that the appellant applied for obtaining training in B.T.C. Course 2007 on the strength of a caste certificate to support her candidature under the Scheduled Tribe category. The said certificate is dated 17th September, 2007. The petitioner obtained admission and succeeded in the examinations, whereafter she was offered appointment as an Assistant Teacher by the Basic Education Officer.
Some complaints were received with regard to her caste certificate, whereupon a verification was made by the Principal, DIET from where the appellant had obtained her training in the B.T.C. Course 2007, passed an order on 08.10.2009 cancelling the candidature of the appellant on the ground that she had obtained admission on the basis of a forged caste certificate.
As a consequence thereof, the Basic Education Officer passed an order dated 21st October, 2009 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher.
Assailing the said orders, the petitioner approached this Court and the learned Single Judge after perusing the records came to the conclusion that the petitioner had obtained training and employment on the basis of a forged caste certificate, which is not in dispute and, therefore, the writ petition was being dismissed.
The learned Single Judge also examined the explanation of the appellant that she had been misled by a counsel who had prepared a forged certificate and handed over the same to the appellant and found the same to be an afterthought.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as a matter of fact, the appellant became a victim of an alleged racket which was involved in the manufacturing of fake certificates. A criminal prosecution has also commenced in the matter after an FIR was lodged. It is submitted that the appellant is nowhere to blame inasmuch as the appellant has been subsequently issued a certificate by the same authorities certifying that she belongs to the same Scheduled Tribe category and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to have taken recourse to a forged certificate. He, therefore, submits that in view of the directions given in paragraph 24 of the Constitution Bench judgement in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others (1990) 3 SCC 130, this Court should compassionately and sympathetically consider the claim of the petitioner and direct the authorities to consider her reinstatement. He submits that the learned Single Judge has overlooked this aspect of the matter and, therefore the impugned judgment be set aside.
We have examined the matter in detail and we find that the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity much less a legal infirmity. Apart from that the Court finds that the claim of the appellant in the reserved category within the State of U.P. may be doubtful as on the date of the Presidential Order of 1967 including the caste of Bhutia in the Schedule the appellants father was admittedly a resident of Pithoragarh which is now in the State of Uttarakhand. In view of that, the appellant may not be able to claim such reservation in view of the reasoning of the Full Bench judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kumari Shweta Santalal Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.6060 of 2008) decided on 03.03.2010.
We may, however, observe that the appellant appears to have no intention to obtain a forged certificate when according to the authorities she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. We are unable to comprehend as to why the appellant would attempt to seek employment on the basis of a forged certificate. According to us, the explanation given by the appellant that she was a victim of circumstances without their being any intention to take help of a forged document, appears to be reasonably acceptable even though the document handed over to her might have been forged by the person who provided it to her. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to seek employment on the basis of a fake document even though the document was ultimately found to be fake.
However, in view of our conclusions drawn hereinabove that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal, therefore, stands consigned to records.
Order Date :- 6.9.2010 VMA (F.I. Rebello, C.J.) (A.P. Sahi, J.)