Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS is a strange case showing the height of dishonesty, forgery, fraud in which not only the employer and the beneficiaries are involved but even a section of media has played a nefarious role forgetting serious ' responsibility it owe to the society who has confidence in its straight forwardness and treat it forth Estate, to work as a watchdog.
(2.) THE writ petition directed against the order dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Division, Kanpur conveying approval to the appointment of respondent Nos. 7 to 11 on Class IV post in Bachchan Singh Tomar Inter College, Nagala Tomar, Balrai, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as "College") and the consequential order dated 5.12.2006 issued by District Inspector of Schools, Etawah/Auraiya (hereinafter referred to as "DIOS") conveying the said approval to the principal of the College i.e. respondent No. 6. THE facts stated in the writ petition are quite simple. There appears to be a managerial dispute with respect to the management of the College. Educational authorities were taking side and favouring Committee of Management in which respondent No. 5 claimed to be Manager and one of such order passed by the educational authorities was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 28.4.2003 in Writ Petition No. 49110 of 2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The managerial dispute is further subject-matter of pending Writ petition No. 66425 of 2005 with which this Court is not concerned. The Principal of the College, it is said, requested DIOS vide letter dated 12th January, 2006 to grant approval for making 5 appointments on Class IV posts against existing vacancies. The said approval was granted by DIOS on 17.1.2006, as is evident from Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Consequently, a letter to this effect was also issued by DIOS on 24.1.2006. The principal claimed to have followed the process of recruitment of advertisement of the vacancy etc., submitted documents alongwith letter dated 22.11.2006 seeking approval of DIOS whereupon DIOS referred the matter to Joint Director of Education vide letter dated 27.11.2006 recommending approval. It is pursuant thereto the impugned order has been passed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that no advertisement whatsoever was ever published in the alleged newspaper "Dainik Din Rat" dated 23.7.2006, as claimed by Principal and relied on by educational authorities i.e. DIOS and Regional Joint Director of Education. He has filed a photocopy of the said newspaper dated 23.7.2006 as Annexure 7 to the writ petition to show that no such advertisement ever published therein. He, however, has also filed a Photo-stat copy of the same newspaper of the same date wherein advertisement of 5 posts of Class IV employees is also contained. He submitted that the newspaper is a local one and has been manipulated and forged by adding the advertisement therein in a few copies though in actual it was not there. This Court required the petitioner to produce complete copy of newspaper which was also produced for my perusal and I find that newspaper is of the same date but there was no such advertisement published on the page on which it was allegedly published.;