Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13760 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manjul Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar,Karma Singh Yadav,Rahul Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Case called out. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition despite notice.
Heard Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for first, second, third and fifth respondent and learned standing counsel.
Pursuant to order dated 26 March 2021, the second and third respondents are present.
By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent-Assistant Director Basic, Gorakhpur Mandal Basti, with regard to payment of salary.
The facts briefly stated is that the petitioner came to be appointed Assistant Teacher in Pt. Dindayal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bitia, Belhar, District Sant Kabir Nagar, on 15 March 2016. The institution is in the grant-in-aid of the State. On 7 April 2017, salary of the petitioner was stopped on an allegation that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the strength of forged documents.
The third respondent-Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic Education), Sant Kabir Nagar, has filed affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the fourth respondent-Committee of Management of the Institution inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner came to be appointed on the approval granted by the fifth respondent-Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar.
It is urged that petitioner joined the post on 17 March 2016. On complaint being received that the petitioner has obtained appointment on forged documents, the second respondent vide communication dated 7 April 2017, directed the fifth respondent to enquire into the matter and pending enquiry the salary of the petitioner was stopped. In the meantime, a complaint being Case Crime No. 273 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, came to be lodged against petitioner, his father, the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari-Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh and the Manager of the Institution on 5 June 2018. The Investigating Officer verified the roll number of B.Sc.-III marksheet of the petitioner from the Mahatma Gandhi P.S. College, Gorakhpur. It was informed that the roll number noted on the marksheet submitted by the petitioner was allotted to one Tufail Ahmad, son of, Rahmat Ali. In other words, petitioner had submitted the mark-sheet (B.Sc.-III) of the same roll number. Further, the intermediate mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner against roll number 1132323 was also found to be a forged document.
It is alleged that father of the petitioner, a clerk, in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari had managed the forged documents to obtain appointment of the son. It is urged that father of the petitioner and the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari in connivance with the petitioner obtained forged documents pertaining to the educational qualification of the petitioner i.e. Intermediate and B.Sc.-III year, as well as, Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate. All documents relied upon by the petitioner and the copies of the original marksheets/certificates have been placed on record.
The T.E.T. certificate for the year 2011 submitted by the petitioner bears Roll No. 10040855 issued to a candidate belonging to backward category (OBC), wheres, the authorities have submitted copy of the original document, wherein, the said roll number was allotted to Kalpana Tripathi, belonging to general category, and she failed to qualify the T.E.T. examination. The T.E.T. certificate submitted by the petitioner bears the same roll number. In other words the document is a forged and manufactured document.
The petitioner has not filed any rebuttal to the aforementioned documents placed on record by the respondents.
Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, 2017 (8) SCC 670, held that:
"Thus, where a benefit is secured by an individual - such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution - on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est."
It follows that when a candidate is found to have put forth a false claim on the strength of forged and manufactured documents and obtained appointment, it would be a negation of the rule of law to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect that individual. Societal good lies in ensuring probity. That is the only manner in which the sanctity of the system can be preserved. The legal system cannot be seen as an avenue to support those who make untrue claims based on forged educational documents.
The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to be utilized to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity. (Refer: Nidhi Kaim vs. State of M.P. (2017) 4 SCC 1) It is not disputed by the petitioner that the documents were duly verified by the competent authorities and the authorities conferring the certificates have certified that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are forged and manufactured documents. Petitioner in the circumstances would have no right to continue on the post and receive salary. The very foundation on which the appointment rests is non-est -- void abinitio. Nothing further has to be done by the authorities but to discontinue the appointment. In permitting the petitioner to continue in service and pay salary would perpetuate fraud and misrepresentation that would be negation of rule of law. Petitioner, his father (clerk) and the then Basic Education Officer were throughout aware that petitioner had obtained the appointment by fraud.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be deposited by the petitioner with the fifth respondent within one month from date, failing which, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the District Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar. The State respondents shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the then Basic Education Officer forthwith.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 S.Prakash