V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court, requesting therein for quashing of the proceedings, which has been undertaken against him.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case, as is reflected from the record, is that the petitioner had applied for B.T.C. Training as physically handicapped category candidate, and based on the disability certificate issued in his favour, petitioner completed training and thereafter had been offered appointment as Assistant Teacher on 25.2.2009. Petitioner has stated that Special Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. Lucknow issued letter to the Director of Education (Basic) for constituting Medical Board for verification of the documents of B.T.C. Selected candidates in respect of their physical disability; thereafter on 15.7.2009, Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow issued letter addressed to the Special Secretary, ShikshaAnubhag-11, U.P. Government, Lucknow, and therein he has given reasons for not constituting Medical Board at State level for verification of physical disability of the Special B.T.C. and B.T.C. Selected incumbents, as for this purpose Medical Board is constituted at district level in the respective districts. Petitioner has stated that on 16.11.2009, Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow constituted Medical Board on the basis of letter issued by the Health Department dated 3.11.2009, and thereafter on 15.7.2010, Director, State Council for Research and Training issued letters to all the Principals of District Institutes of Education and Training in U.P. to send the candidates selected for Special B.T.C. 2007, 2008 and B.T.C.-2010 under physically handicapped quota, for verification at Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow. Petitioner has stated that pursuant to said direction, he appeared before the Medical Board and submitted his physical disability certificates before the Medical Board; there he was not subjected to any medical examination and his physical capacity was not tested; petitioner was only observed and not examined by the Medical Board. Petitioner has contended that based on the report, impugned show-cause notice has been issued. At this juncture, present writ petitions have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case language of show-cause notice clearly shows that the authorities concerned have already taken decision in the matter and the notices are mere formality, and as such entire exercise being undertaken is unjustifiable exercise, and is not at all free, fair and transparent, as such based on the same no action can be taken, and the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training has no authority to issue show-cause notice. Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, Sri K.K. Chand, on the other hand, has contended that the Medical Board constituted by Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow got verification proceedings done of disability certificate vis-a-vis physical disability of the candidates, and in verification physical disability has not been substantiated, in such a situation and in this background, show- cause notice have been issued to the petitioner, asking him to appear alongwith documentary evidence, and whatever petitioners want to say, they should say at the first instance before the authority concerned, as such there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned show-cause notices.
(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges, is that the petitioner, had applied for admission to Special B.T.C. Course under physically handicapped quota; he has been selected and offered appointment; thereafter, State Government in its wisdom has chosen to undertake verification,proceedings. Said verification policy had been subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ petition No. 53152 of 2010, Ravindra Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 31.8.2010, wherein this Court has taken the view that the State Government has every right to get the verification proceedings done. Against the said order of Single Bench, Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 had been preferred, which has been disposed of by Division Bench with certain observations. Operative portion of the judgment of Special Appeal Bench is being quoted below: "7. We may clarify that the process adopted by the State Government for physical verification is for the limited purpose to ascertain the genuineness of the candidates and the certificates, which have been so issued. In our opinion, the candidates cannot be subjected to a further medical examination for the purpose of issuance of a certificate. 8. There is a presumption of validity of a certificate issued in accordance with the Rules, 1996 so long as nothing to the contrary is detected and established. There cannot be a permission in law to make a fishing and roving enquiry for subjecting a candidate to repetitive medical tests unless there is any genuine suspected or detected fraud or misrepresentation perceived by the authority. There may be cases of gross irregularities in certification against the norms prescribed for assessing physical disability, but it has to be on the basis of a bona fide approach and not an attempt to simply re-open the medical certification that has been carried out as envisaged under the Rules. 9. If however, upon a physical verification, the authorities come to the conclusion that the candidate has not been genuinely issued a certificate of disability or otherwise or that he does not suffer from any disability so certified, which entitles him to such a certificate, then and in that event only, a candidate can be subjected to a fresh Medical Board and not otherwise. 10. The appellants, therefore, cannot resist the physical verification as directed by the respondents and, we accordingly, hold that the direction dated 15th of July, 2010 would be construed as indicated hereinabove. 11. The respondents would, therefore, initially limit the enquiry of physical verification to the extent indicated above, and in case, any error or fraud or misrepresentation or gross irregularity is detected, then the candidates could be subjected to a fresh Medical Board or any other enquiry, as may be permissible under the rules. To that extent, the communication dated 15th of July, 2010 read with the Government Order dated 3rd of November, 2009 stands explained and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st of August, 2010 stands modified, accordingly. 12. The appeal stands disposed of subject to the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs." In the present case, factual position is that on physical verification being held, the petitioner failed to satisfy the test, as such show-cause notice has been issued to him. Petitioner, after receiving said show-cause notice, submitted his reply on 15.9.2010, and therein, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notice issued by Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Budaun and further requested to supply the authenticated copy of the letter dated 6.8.2010, so that he may effectively assist on the subject matter.;