- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 18 February 2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed.
(2.) In pursuance of an advertisement, which was published on 31 May 2010 inviting applications for the post of two Preraks for Gram Sabha, Manikpur Kalan, 13 persons had applied. Among them were the appellant and the seventh respondent. One of the two posts was reserved for a woman candidate and against which Smt. Sushma Rani Srivastava was selected. Against the second post, the appellant was selected and was appointed on 23 June 2011, after which he was sent for training. The seventh respondent filed a representation on 21 August 2012, inter alia contending that he had appeared for his post graduation and though, the result was awaited, he ought to have been awarded marks. The District Magistrate rejected the representation on 27 November 2012. The seventh respondent then filed a writ petition, which was disposed of 25 August 2014 with a direction to the District Magistrate to constitute a Committee to consider the representation. The District Magistrate thereupon constituted a committee consisting of the Chief Development Officer and the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur. Admittedly, though the appellant was sought to be displaced, he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Committee opined that the NSS certificate of the seventh respondent had not been taken into consideration in the award of marks and decided to accept the representation submitted by the seventh respondent. The Committee recommended that the appointment, which is made in favour of the appellant, be cancelled and that the seventh respondent be selected on the post. The appellant then filed a writ petition contending that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, he was not heard before the Committee, which submitted its report. The Learned single Judge by the judgment and order impugned in these proceedings has dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) From the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, it appears that an interim order was passed on 7 January 2014, when the entire original record was summoned before the Court. From the record, it appeared that there was on over-writing on the application submitted by the seventh respondent and that the number of annexures to the application submitted was changed from 13 to 12. The learned single Judge noted that there was no initial in the relevant column in the application form of the seventh respondent against the over-writing and that it also appeared from a receipt issued by the authority of the Institution that the total number of enclosures along with the application submitted was 13. In this background, the learned single Judge accepted the finding of the Committee that though the seventh respondent had submitted his NSS certificate, it had not been taken into account. The learned single Judge held that as forgery is writ large on the face of the record, the ground taken for not allowing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, was without force. The writ petition was dismissed.;