- (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2011 of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 28428 of 2011. The judgment is as follows: Although present writ petition at the behest of the individual member may not be maintainable yet this Court is of the considered opinion that any person who has obtained appointment by fraud (on the forged educational certificates) cannot be permitted to continue and draw salary from the State exchequer. The issue in that regard must be examined by the Director of Education having regard to the powers vested in him under Section 16(E)(10) of the Intermediate Education Act. Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel is directed to transmit the order passed today within two weeks to the Director of Education, who shall summon the original service records and examine the qualification possessed by the Respondent No. 6 and shall satisfy himself as to whether he possesses the prescribed minimum qualification or not after due verification of the educational certificates for the Board/University concerned. Such exercise must be completed within two months. Director shall take all consequential order as may be warranted under law and shall pass a reasoned order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
(2.) IT is the submission of Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that such inquiry could not have been directed to be held after a period of 37 years since the Appellant was appointed in 1974 and is to retire on 30th June, 2011 and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Asha Saxena v. Smt. S.K. Chaudhary and Ors. : (1991) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1202. It is also his submission that when an observation was made by the learned Judge that the petition at the behest of a single member of the Society was not maintainable, the Court should not have entertained the writ petition and, therefore, any direction issued for holding of an enquiry is not justified. It is also his submission that even if the petition could be treated as a Public Interest Litigation then too the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction since the petition was cognizable by a Division Bench. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Maya Dixit and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 (8) A.D.J. 631 and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Neeraj Chaubey and Ors. : (2010) 10 SCC 320. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that as the Court was prima facie satisfied that the Appellant -Respondent No. 6 had obtained appointment by filing forged documents, the Court was justified in directing for an inquiry to be conducted to ascertain whether the Petitioner had actually obtained appointment by filing forged documents. It is, therefore, his submission that the Special Appeal may be dismissed.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.;