Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1648 of 2016 Petitioner :- Yogesh Pratap Singh Respondent :- Regional Committee Headed By J.D. Of Edu. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Arvind Kumar, Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Pravesh Pandey
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Pravesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State, and perused the record.
2. Sri Shankar Ji Inter College, Pushp Nagar, Azamgarh, (for short 'Institution'), an Intermediate Institution duly recognized and in grant-in-aid of the State. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and Regulations framed thereunder is applicable upon the Institution. The Manager of the Institution sought approval from the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, to fillup the vacancy on the post of Clerk, which fell vacant on the promotion of the Assistant Clerk to the post of Head Clerk. Upon receiving the approval of the second respondent, the Manager on 11 August 2008 notified the advertisement in two dailies, namely, ‘Deval Dainik’ and ‘Aaj’ on 28 August 2008 and 30 August 2008 respectively, along with the vacancy of five posts of class-
IV employees. It appears that the Committee of Management of the Institution on 28 September 2008 constituted two separate Selection Committees one for the post of Assistant Clerk and another for the post of Class-IV employees. The recommendations of the Selection Committee was considered and approved by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 30 September 2008, pursuant thereof, an appointment letter came to be issued on 3 July 2009 and a further communication was issued on 10 July 2009 by the Management directing the Principal of the Institution to permit the petitioner to join the post.
3. It is urged that the petitioner joined the Institution on the post of Clerk on 11 July 2009 and since then he is discharging his duties. It appears that in 2010, petitioner was prevented by the Principal of the Institution to work. The second respondent, District Inspector of Schools kept the matter pending with regard to the approval of the selections on the post of Clerk and Class-IV employees. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 65972 of 2009, which came to be disposed of on 15 December 2009, directing the second respondent to take a decision with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that the matter with regard to the appointment of the petitioner came to be decided by the first respondent, Regional Level Committee, Azamgarh, by the impugned order dated 6 January 2016. The claim of the petitioner for approval of his appointment on the post of Clerk was declined.
4. It is urged by learned Senior Counsel that the material and documents placed by the Manager was not provided to the petitioner, further, pursuant to the same advertisement selections made on the post of Class-IV employees came to be approved by the second respondent vide order dated 22 June 2010. In this backdrop, it is urged that the stand taken by the Manager before the Regional Level Committee that the selections are fraudulent; no advertisement was made by the Committee, is incorrect for the reason that pursuant to the same advertisement two Selection Committees were constituted and the recommendations of the Selection Committee pertaining to Class-IV employees was duly approved by the second respondent, whereas, the recommendations for the post of clerk arising from the same advertisement was rejected.
5. I have perused the impugned order with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is noted in the impugned order that the petitioner, the ex-Manager, the ex-Principal, the present Manager and the Principal had put in appearance before the Regional Level Committee. The petitioner filed his written submissions on 13 March 2014. The matter was posted for hearing on 1 September 2014. The petitioner, the ex- Manager, and the then Principal appeared, the written submissions submitted by the parties was exchanged and provided to the petitioner and other parties. Thereafter, another date was fixed, whereby, the documents pertaining to the selection and interview was summoned from the Management. Finally on 10 November 2015, the Manager and the petitioner appeared and on the consent of the parties the hearing was closed.
7. The contention of the then Manager was that the Committee of Management had not initiated any proceedings for selection of Clerk/Class-IV post, the documents filed before the second respondent pertaining to the appointment of the Clerk is forged and manufactured documents. In support of his submission a notarized affidavit was filed. It was categorically stated that the alleged advertisement was never issued by the Management nor was it in his knowledge. It was further submitted that his signatures appended in the documents pertaining to the selection/appointment of the petitioner is forged and fabricated. Petitioner never came to be appointed on the post of Clerk. It is further urged that the entire exercise was carried out fraudulently by the then Principal viz. Sri Ram Surat Yadav, in connivance with the petitioner and others. The then Manager denied that he had ever signed any documents pertaining to the selection or appointment. The documents presented to the office of the District Inspector of Schools are forged and manufactured documents. It was further urged that no meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 30 September 2008, the resolution is forged and manufactured document and the signature thereon of the Manager is also forged.
8. The present incumbent to the office of the Principal Sri Shiv Prasad Misra and the Manager in their averments stated that the record and documents pertaining to the selections for the post of Clerk/Class-IV is not available in his office nor it is in their knowledge that any such selection process was ever initiated, nor any Selection Committee was constituted and no interview in the campus of the Institution was held. While taking charge of the post of Principal the records of the selections pursuant to the alleged advertisement/selection was not provided, nor it is available with the Institution.
9. Sri Ram Surat Yadav the then Principal asserted that the selection of the petitioner was made by a Selection Committee of which he was a member. The Selection Committee was convened on the approval of the Manager; the records of the Selection Committee was forwarded to the office of District Inspector of Schools on 5 October 2008. On the directions of the then Manager a new attendance register was prepared for appending the signatures of the newly selected Clerk and Class-IV employees pending financial approval. The signatures of the appointed persons, thereafter, would be appended on the regular attendance register. He further stated that the signatures appended on the proceedings of the Selection Committee, is his own signature. It was further contended that the Manager himself was present as a member of the Selection Committee. The petitioner since 11 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 performed his duties and appended his signature on the new attendance register and thereafter, it was submitted that he proceeded on leave on 30 January 2009 and since then the petitioner has not been working nor has appended his signature on the register prepared for the purpose.
10. The present Manager of the Institution appeared and deposed before the Regional Committee that the petitioner was never appointed; no record pertaining to the selection is available with the Management. The resolutions as alleged are not available on the record, rather, it was stated that the entire documents with regard to the selections are forged and manufactured by the then Principal in connivance with other teachers and officials to give an impression that Selection Committee was constituted and recommended the name of the petitioner.
11. The Regional Level Committee upon hearing the parties and on considering the rival contentions and perusal of the records came to a conclusion that the entire selections is based on forged and manufactured documents; the selection was not held in the campus of the Institution, nor did the Management resolve to hold the selections and appointment. This fact was established by the statements and original documents produced by the then Manager and the present Manager and the Principal of the Institution, categorically deposed that they have no knowledge or information with regard to the appointment of the petitioner nor any proceedings was undertaken by the Institution. The records of the selection is not available in the Institution.
12. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the documents and the records produced before the Regional Committee by the erstwhile Manager should have been provided to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to rebut the documents.
13. The submission lacks merit, serious disputed questions of fact are involved in the instant writ petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to place the documents relied upon by him and was heard. The order records that the rival contentions (written submission) were exchanged between the parties and the hearing was closed on the consent of the parties. The Regional Committee upon considering the rival contentions and the material placed on record, arrived at a conclusion that the entire selection is fraudulent. The advertisement published in two newspapers were of different dates and 10 days time was granted to the candidates to make application. The last date for submission of the application was not mentioned despite the fact that the advertisement were notified on different dates. The then Manager has denied signing the proceedings of the Selection Committee. The selected candidates were required to append their signature not on the attendance register meant for the regular employees but on a separate register, which is not the normal practice. The present Manager and the Principal have clearly stated that the petitioner never came to be appointed and the records pertaining to selections as is being alleged by the petitioner and the then Principal, is based on manufactured and fraudulent documents. The records pertaining to the selections and resolutions of the Committee of Management is not available with the Institution. The then Principal had conspired with the petitioner and others to stage manage the selections.
14. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the selections pertaining to Class-IV employees, which was part and parcel of the same notification, came to be approved by the District Inspector of Schools. In other words, it is submitted that part of the proceedings as is being contended by the Management being fraudulent and based on manufactured documents, cannot be accepted.
15. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the Management has filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 44258 of 2010 (C/M Sri Shanker Ji Inter College and another vs. State of U.P. and others) assailing the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools in respect of Class-IV employees, this Court has stayed the order. The Class-IV employees, pursuant to the alleged selections, are not functioning in the Institution, nor are receiving salary.
16. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court declines to exercise its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. No cost.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 S.Prakash