Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Sanding Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, Sri Ghaus Beg, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 4 and 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Committee of Management, Junior High School, Thana, Unnao in the year 1985 along with Sri Saheblal and Sri Shyam Singh. Later on Sri Saheblal and Sri Shyam Singh were absorbed in the services but the petitioner's case for absorption against the regular vacancy was, not considered by the Committee of Management. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he has worked in the said institution for several years. The institution came under the purview of grant -in -aid in the years 1984 and is presently under the complete supervision of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao. The petitioner had submitted experience certificate issued by the Deputy Manager of the institution, Sri Surendra Singh, to demonstrate that he had satisfactorily worked in the Institution. The petitioner is having B.A. and Shiksha Visharad degree issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in 1st Division in the year 2003.
(2.) THE petitioner has indicated in the writ petition that initially he was not a trained teacher but due to pressure exerted by the Management, he proceeded for taking Vishard degree. After obtaining a degree in Shiksha Visharad, the petitioner approached the Management for absorbing him as regular teacher. The petitioner was not allowed to resume duties or absorb despite submitting several representations. He had raised grievance through this writ petition that the opposite parties are going to appoint other persons which may result in termination of services of the petitioner. He has also placed an interim order passed by this Court on 18.11.2002 at Allahabad to prove that Shiksha Visharad certificate is equivalent to B.T.C. This Court had passed an ex parte interim order on 16.9.2004, allowing the petitioner to continue in the services and issued directions for payment of salary. Counter affidavits have been filed by the opposite parties No. 3 and 5 and appearance has been put in by Sri Ghaus Beg and Sri Singh. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have categorically submitted that the petitioner is stranger to the Junior High School, Thana, Unnao as he was never appointed in the school as Assistant Teacher. It has been categorically admitted by the petitioner Sri Shyam Veer Singh that he was not a trained teacher in the year 1985. He had obtained the alleged Shiksha Visharad degree in the year 2004 only. He was not found qualified and fit for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution, there was no resolution of the Committee of Management on record, indicating that the petitioner was ever appointed in the Institution. There were no signatures of the petitioner in the attendance register of the school, which is regularly maintained in the institution. The petitioner was neither appointed in the school nor he had worked in the school. He has manufactured some certificates issued by the Deputy Manager of the School. A certificate dated 10.10.2004 has also been produced before the Court along with the counter -affidavit filed by the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in support of its submissions that Annexures No. 1 and 2 of the writ petition are forged and fabricated documents. However, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that later on Sri Jagamohan Singh, Adhyaksh, Prabandh Samiti had supported the version of the petitioner by filing an affidavit on 30.11.2004, but no documents have been annexed by Sri Jag Mohan Singh in support of his affidavit. The Management has further submitted that Sri Saheb Lal and Shyam Singh were also not appointed in the institution.
(3.) SRI Ajay Pal Maurya, Head Master of the institution has filed a counter affidavit and denied that he had ever issued any experience certificate to the petitioner. According to the Head Master of the institution, the petitioner was not appointed in the institution nor any certificate was issued to the petitioner by him. The petitioner's name was never entered as staff member of the institution. No selection process was initiated nor any appointment was approved for the same in the year 1990 -91 in accordance with law by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.;