Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42662 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Laxmi Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4-District Programmee Officer, Bijnor terminating the services of the petitioner.
Facts, in brief, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Karyakatri on 14.09.2005. Her services were terminated by the orders of Children Development Programmee Officer (C.D.P.O.), Nazibabad, Bijnor on 12.07.2007. However, the order of termination was set-aside by respondent no. 4 on 21.10.2007. It appears that some dispute had arisen between petitioner and respondent no. 5 at that time, it continued for awhile and respondent no. 2 on 07.04.2011 directed for lodging of FIR against the petitioner and her services were also terminated. This order was put to challenge by petitioner through Writ Petition No. 36295 of 2011, this Court on 08.07.2011 directed the District Magistrate to decide the representation of the petitioner and further directed that the District Magistrate, if required, shall get the certificates verified from the institution concerned and if found true, he shall further examine as to whether they are equivalent to high-school and intermediate or not. It appears that the District Magistrate, thereafter, proceeded to decide the representation on 16.09.2011 wherein he found that her certificates were not in accordance with the requisite qualification and her representation was rejected.
According to the petitioner the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3 was challenged before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad-respondent no. 2 who vide order dated 24.09.2012 accepted the claim of petitioner and directed the respondent no. 4 for giving charge to the petitioner immediately. Pursuant thereto petitioner joined on 19.10.2012. Again a notice was issued by respondent no. 4 on 03.05.2014 for clarification in regard to her educational qualification. Respondent no. 4, thereafter, proceeded to hold that the petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification and by order impugned dated 16.07.2014 her services were terminated.
Sri Jagdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that once the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad decided the issue in favour of the petitioner on 24.09.2012, respondent no. 4 was not justified in issuing notice subsequently and initiating inquiry afresh and on basis of the same terminating the services of the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that Writ Petition No. 36295 of 2011 filed by the petitioner challenging her earlier termination was decided by this Court on 08.07.2011 with a direction upon the District Magistrate, respondent no. 3, to decide the issue in regard to the appointment of petitioner on the basis of the certificates submitted by the petitioner after verification. It was in pursuance of the said order that District Magistrate proceeded and recorded a categorical finding that certificates, so submitted, by the petitioner were not correct and respondent no. 3 rejected her representation. Against the order dated 16.09.2011 petitioner neither preferred any appeal nor filed any writ petition before this Court and said order stood attained finality.
Learned Standing Counsel invited attention of the Court to Annexure No. 16 of the paper book wherein the order passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on 24.09.2012 is appended, and perusal of the same reveals that it was not passed on any appeal of petitioner against the order of District Magistrate dated 16.09.2011, but was on a fresh application of the petitioner dated 16.08.2012 and 29.08.2012, thus, it is wrong to say that order of District Magistrate was set- aside by the Commissioner in appeal.
It is also contended, on behalf of State-respondents, that this Court on 08.01.2016 had directed to file supplementary counter affidavit for the purpose of verifying the document annexed with rejoinder affidavit. Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit is the letter sent by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha U.P. to the District Programmee Officer Bijnor stating that the earlier letter dated 16.04.2009 was issued by the Pratinidhi Sabha while the subsequent letter dated 12.11.2013 was not issued by the organization concerned as it was not recorded in its register. Further, Gurukul University Vrindavan apprised the District Programmee Officer Bijnor on 19.06.2014 that there was no record regarding the petitioner as far as her education, examination etc. are concerned and it was further stated that the certificates, so issued, were forged one. Respondent no. 4 acting upon the reports proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 16.07.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
This case appears to be a case of concealment of material fact by the petitioner not only from the authorities regarding her educational qualification but also to the effect the orders passed by the various district authorities, which have not been disclosed in a correct manner before this Court and has been manipulated and concealed by the petitioner so as to get the benefits of her misdeeds.
As it is an admitted case of the petitioner that after her appointment was cancelled by order of respondent no. 5, she had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36295 of 2011, which was disposed of on 08.07.2011 with a direction upon respondent no. 3 i.e. District Magistrate Bijnor to decide her representation as well as if required get the certificates inquired with the application form verified from the institution. Pursuant to which, District Magistrate proceeded to decide the issue on 16.09.2011 wherein it was found that petitioner had made certain fabrications in the application form, so submitted by her in the year 2005 and by wrongfully disclosing her educational qualification, she has got the appointment. The District Magistrate after recording a categorical finding rejected her claim.
The order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the District Magistrate was never challenged by the petitioner before any forum. An averment has been made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition that order dated 16.09.2011 was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 who vide order dated 24.09.2012 allowed the representation of the petitioner and set-aside the orders dated 07.11.2011 and 20.04.2011. From perusal of the orders passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 24.09.2012, it is clear that it was passed on the applications of the petitioner dated 16.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 and nowhere it takes note of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 16.09.2011, which was passed in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court. The averment made by petitioner on affidavit in paragraph 21 of the writ petition is totally false and misleading, as order dated 16.09.2011 was never put to challenge, nor the Commissioner- respondent no. 2 had set-aside the order aforesaid, which had become final and binding upon the petitioner.
It appears that petitioner has never challenged the order dated 16.09.2011 nor this fact was ever brought before the Commissioner when the order dated 24.09.2012 was passed, as such, petitioner cannot be granted benefit of the order passed by the respondent no. 2, as dispute had already stood settled in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, wherein respondent no. 3 has recorded categorical finding on 16.09.2011. As far as order dated 16.07.2014 is concerned, respondent no. 4, after this Court has directed for verification of educational certificates submitted by petitioner, for verification had proceeded, and a notice was issued wherein after inquiry it was found that the documents, so submitted by the petitioner relating to her educational qualification, were not in conformity and, therefore, her services were terminated. Moreover, the correspondence brought on record through supplementary counter affidavit by the State of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and Gurukul University Vrindavan also added to the fact that petitioner has not only tried to mislead the district authorities but also this Court.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has not only concealed her educational qualification while applying for being considered as Anganbari Karyakatri but has also not approached this Court with clean hands by not correctly disclosing the fact that after order of District Magistrate dated 16.09.2011, which was passed in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 08.07.2011, no proceedings were initiated by her challenging the said order, which had attained finality.
Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019
Shekhar