- (1.) THE special appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 17 September 2014, dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/ -. In the writ petition, the appellants sought a mandamus for the payment of their salary on the post of Tax Collector since 20 August 2009 and also sought to challenge an order passed by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari of the Zila Panchayat, Jaunpur, rejecting their claim.
(2.) FROM the record, it transpires that an advertisement was issued for recruitment on the post of Tax Collector on 12 August 2006. One post was reserved for OBC candidates and three posts were unreserved. Under Rule 75 of the Zila Panchayat Service Rules, 1970, the Upper Mukhya Adhikari was the appointing authority who had to issue a letter of appointment. The sheet allotting marks of the selection process indicated that it did not bear the signature of the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, who did not participate in the selection process. Yet marks were awarded against his name. In the counter affidavit, which was filed on behalf of the Zila Panchayat, it is also stated, while referring to the aforesaid facts that the appellants had never joined the post and in any event, there was no question of the payment of their salary. Moreover, it was specifically averred that the signature of the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, on an alleged letter of appointment, which was produced on behalf of the appellants, was forged and fabricated. These facts have been duly considered by the learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion that the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, who was the competent authority, had not participated in the selection process but surprisingly, marks have been allotted against his name. No appointment letter was issued by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari. The entire exercise appears to have been done at the behest of the erstwhile Chairman who had no authority. The learned Single Judge noted that the alleged appointment letters; one issued by the Chairman on 4 August 2009 and the other by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari on 28 August 2009 were brought on the record by the appellants. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zila Panchayat stated that there was no such letter on the record of the Zila Panchayat. Both the letters are found to be fabricated documents.
(3.) IN these circumstances, the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference at all and it is eminently correct. An award of costs was, in the facts of the present case, warranted having due regard to the conduct of the appellants in relying upon fabricated material. There is no merit in the special appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.;