- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. As agreed by learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the rules of the Court at the admission stage since pleadings are complete. The order impugned in this writ petition is dated 19/20 September, 2008 passed by Senior Superintendent, Mandal/Zila Karagar, Azamgarh (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) whereby petitioner's appointment made on 18th December, 2004 on the post of Bandi Rakshak in Azamgarh Division has been cancelled on the ground that the sport certificate submitted by the petitioner has been found forged, on the basis whereof the petitioner was selected for interview and in the ultimate merit list. The impugned order says that it is only on account of the marks earned by the petitioner on the basis of sports certificate that he could get his position in the merit list to get appointment and since that basis i.e., sports certificate has been found forged, his selection cannot stand.
(2.) The facts in brief, as stated in the writ petition, are that selection process for the post of Bandi Rakshak for Azamgarh Division was initiated in August, 2004. The petitioner Rahul Kumar applied as a general category candidate and was allotted Roll No. G-670. Having qualified the physical test, he was called for interview on 14.12.2004 vide interview letter dated 2.12.2004. He was ultimately selected and by appointment letter dated 18.12.2004 issued by the Senior Superintendent, Mandal/Zila Karagar, Azamgarh (respondent No. 3), he was appointed as Bandi Rakshak in the scale of 3050-4590. The petitioner joined on 21st December, 2004 and thereafter was posted in District Jail Mau by order dated 29.12.2004. He completed his training on 7th May, 2005 and since thereafter is discharging his duties. While working at District Jail Mau, he received a notice dated 1.11.2007 issued by the respondent No. 3 stating that the sports certificate submitted by him at the time of appointment was sent for verification but it has been found that no such office in the name of which sports certificate was issued, exist, hence registered letter was received back and the sports certificate could not be verified. He was, therefore, required to inform as to which institution had issued such certificate for further action. The petitioner replied on 12.12.2007 that he had not submitted any sports certificate and his selection/appointment was made on the basis of general merit. Thereafter on 19th July, 2008, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the sports certificate of Uttar Pradesh Olympic Association, which he had submitted, was sent for verification to the Joint Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Olympic Association, Lucknow and by letter dated 9th June, 2008, he has informed that the said certificate is forged and fictitious, hence, the petitioner has apparently obtained appointment on the basis of a forged sports certificate. He was further required to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated and further legal action may not be initiated by lodging a report against him. This notice was replied by the petitioner on 11th August, 2008 stating that he had never submitted any sports certificate, hence the question of submission of forged certificate does not arise. The respondent No. 3 sent a further registered notice dated 23rd August, 2008 directing the petitioner to submit his reply with respect to the sports certificate which was also replied by the petitioner on 29th August, 2008 and therein he categorically stated that in his application form, in para 8(Da), he has not mentioned or claimed his proficiency in sports and has not made requisite mark therein which clearly shows that he had not applied for appointment claiming proficiency in sports and had submitted only educational certificates in support of his claim. The respondent No. 3, however, has passed the impugned order.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents they have placed on record the correspondence, they entered with the Secretary General, U.P. Olympic Association, Lucknow about verification of the sports certificates of various candidates who have claimed appointment submitting sports certificates which included the name of the petitioner also and when it was informed by them that the certificate of the petitioner was not genuine, the termination order has been passed. It is also stated that the petitioner on the basis of his educational qualification could secure only 20 marks. He was awarded three marks on account of sports certificate showing himself to be sportsman of State level and thus, had secured 23 marks in all. The candidates who had secured 21 marks and above were called for interview and since the petitioner in total had secured 23 marks therefore he was so called. Since the certificate submitted by the petitioner was found forged, if the marks given to the petitioner based on the Sports certificate are deducted, he would have got only 20 marks and therefore, below the merit of the candidates who were called for interview. Hence he has rightly been terminated.;