V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the District of Gorakhpur, there is a recognized institution known as St. Andrews Intermediate College. Said institution in question is duly governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Said institution is also on the grant -in -aid list of the State Government, and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. Institution in question is recorded minority institution, as such the same is entitled for protection under Article 30 of the Constitution. Petitioner of writ petition No. 18874 of 2010 has been functioning as Principal of the institution and his precise complaint is that Mr. Shailesh Kumar Gupta had got his appointment on the basis of forged certificates of B.Ed., M.Sc. and B.A. 3rd year, and succeeded in getting himself installed as Assistant Teacher. The Management of the institution in the year 2003 had written letter to the Examination Controller of Pt. Din Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur for verification of educational certificates of B.Ed., M.Sc. And B.A. 3rd year, and then the Examination Controller of the University concerned on 04.02.2003 had informed that the said documents were forged. The District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur also sent special messenger to the Controller of Examination of Pt. Din Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur, then it was revealed that B.Ed certificate bearing Roll No. 7172 issued in the year 1990 being possessed by Shailesh Kumar Gupta was forged document. The District Inspector of Schools on 15.01.2005 passed order asking the Principal of the institution to lodge First Information Report against said Shailesh Kumar Gupta. The Principal of the institution has stated that thereafter manipulations were made and orders were passed on 10.01.2007, for ensuring payment to said Shailesh Kumar Gupta. Again objections were raised to the effect that educational testimonials of Mr. Shailesh Kumar Gupta were forged and, then Joint Director of Education on 20.03.2007 again asked the District Inspector of Schools to verify his educational certificates. Thereafter, letter was issued for stopping salary of Shailesh Kumar Gupta, since verification of educational certificates was being undertaken. The District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur on 22.03.2007 again issued letter in this regard. The Principal of the institution asked Mr. Shailesh Kumar Gupta for submission of educational certificates; he (the Principal), after receiving the said documents, moved an application to the Principal Madan Mohan Malviya P.G. College, Bhatpar Rani, Deoria for certifying the B.Ed. Degree of Shailesh Kumar Gupta. The Principal of the said institution on 16.04.2008 declared the B.Ed. Mark -sheet of Shailesh Kumar Gupta with Roll No. 7172 as forged. The University also on 02.06.2008 informed that Roll No. 7172 in relation to B.Ed. was in the name of Km. Nelima Gupta. The Principal thereafter requested the District Inspector of Schools to do the needful in the matter, but the District Inspector of Schools, ignoring all these aspects of the matter, on 25.04.2009 proceeded to pass order for ensuring payment of salary to Shailesh Kumar Gupta. At the said juncture, Sri R.B. Singh, the Principal of St. Andrews Intermediate College, Gorakhpur instituted writ petition No. 18874 of 2010 before this Court and this Court on 07.04.2010 passed following order: Let the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur appear before this Court on 16th April, 2010 along with an affidavit categorically disclosing as to how payment of salary is being made to Respondent No. 5, namely, Shailesh Kumar Gupta, despite the report of the Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur dated 4th February, 2003 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) that B.Ed., M.Sc. and B.A. -III year mark -sheets produced by the Respondent No. 5 are forged documents. The District Inspector of Schools must also explain as to why the order may not be passed for the entire money which has been paid towards salary to Respondent No. 5 be not recovered from his personal assets. Put up this matter on 16th April, 2010 as unlisted matter.
(2.) THEREAFTER matter was again taken up on 16.04.2010, when this Court passed following order: Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heavy reliance has been placed upon the documents enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition for contending that Respondent has produced forged educational certificates for the purpose of appointment as teacher in the college. In paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit filed by the teacher concerned it is stated that the documents are genuine. Let the counsel for the University summon the original records pertaining to the B.Ed examination. M.Sc examination and B.A. -III examination of the Petitioner for the year 1995,1999 and 1990 respectively. The controller of the examination shall file his personal affidavit categorically stating as to whether the documents enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition has been issued by his office or not. Put up on 23.4.2010. Thereafter, on 11.05.2010 this Court proceeded to pass the following order: Supplementary affidavit filed today may be taken on record. The original records as asked for by this Court under order dated 07.04.2010 have been produced today by the counsel for the University. Smt. Sunita Agrawal, counsel for the University on the basis of the instructions received has made an statement before this Court that the relevant page of the cross list pertaining to Roll No. 7172 of the year 1990 is not available in the records of the University. It is further stated that the University shall lodge a First Information Report within a week from today. However she has produced the original copy of the report of the Controller of Examination dated 04.02.2003 containing letter No. 60195 which specifically records that the B.Ed. mark sheet bearing Roll No. 7172 produced by Shailesh Kumar Gupta, Respondent No. 5 is forged. Counsel for the University submits that there is little or no occasion for this Court to disbelieve this verification report inasmuch as at the relevant point of time the University had no concern with the inter se dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 and even today it has no concern. It has been stated that such verification has been done by the Controller of Examination himself as is apparent from the signatures appended on the report which has been produced in original and photocopy whereof is enclosed at page 29 of the writ petition. It has further been pointed out that the cross list sent to the College from where the candidate had appeared with Roll No. 7172 has been asked for by the University, however there is an apparent over writing and scratching of the original name. Therefore, such cross list cannot be relied upon. It is pointed out that the matter requires thorough enquiry and investigation. Similarly in respect of M.A. (Maths) examination and B.A. (Maths) examination, it is stated that the Degree said to have been issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 have been found to be forged by the University and the original cross list have been produced in that regard. Shri R.N. Yadav counsel for the Petitioner with reference to the documents brought on record as Annexure -7 to the writ petition at page No. 51, submits that in fact Neelima Gupta, real sister of the Petitioner had appeared in the B.Ed. examination. Reference is also made to the mark sheet issued to Neelima Singh qua the same B.Ed. examination of the year 1990. He has also referred to the Degree issued by the University. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there can be another document which may throw light on the issue i.e. the Degree of B.Ed. of Roll No. 7172 as per records of the University. Counsel for the University seeks time to examine the Degree records and to also verify as to whether Neelima Gupta, daughter of B.P. Gupta had passed the B.Ed. examination in the year 1988 with Roll No. 20380, or not. Put up as unlisted on 17.05.2010.
(3.) DURING pendency of writ petition No. 18874 of 2010, Shalesh Kumar Gupta approached this Court questioning the validity of order dated 25.04.2010 by preferring writ petition No. 28050 of 2010, and this Court on presentation of writ petition directed that this writ petition be listed along with writ petition No. 18874 of 2010. Thereafter matter was again taken up on 20.05.2010 and 28.05.2010, when this Court passed following orders: Despite the orders of this Court dated 11th May, 2010 and dated 17th May, 2010, the original records of the University which could establish the issuance of the degree in respect of B.Ed. examination of the year 1990 bearing Roll Number 7172 has not been produced before this Court. The Court is surprise. Let the Registrar of the University ensure that records are produced before this Court on 26th May, 2010 after obtaining the same from the officer concerned, with whom the same are available. It is made clear that in case the original records are not so produced before this Court on the next date, the Registrar of the University shall remain present before this Court. Put up this matter on 26th May, 2010 as unlisted. xxx xxx xxx Sri Shiv Shanker Verma, Acting Registrar of the University is present in the Court today and he has also filed compliance affidavit, which be taken on record. It is surprising that despite orders passed by this Court earlier, original records of the Degree Section of the University pertaining to Roll No. 7172 of B.Ed. examination of the year 1990 are not being produced before this Court, even? after a First Information Report has been directed to be lodged under the directions? of this Court, as? the Court after verification of the original cross -list of the relevant year had noticed that relevant page pertaining to Roll No. 7172 is missing. Letter of the Dealing Assistant (Examination Samanya) presents a very disturbing picture and it appears that instead of producing original records before this Court, uncalled for correspondence is being entered into. This Court is not happy with the matter as it stands. Let the Vice -Chancellor of the University take all necessary action, as may be warranted under law for ensuring that the degree/records as required? are produced before this Court by the Registrar of the University on 1st July, 2010 and in case the records are not produced on the next date, the Vice -Chancellor of the University must file his personal affidavit as to why appropriate action has not been taken in the matter. List this matter on 1st July, 2010.;