- (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules by the writ petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13 July 2010 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ Petition No.2518 of 2008 that was filed by the appellant was disposed of with certain directions.
(2.) The writ petitioner took admission in Sri Shiva Mahavidyalaya, Kaptanganj, Azamgarh (the College) which is affiliated to the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (the University) in B.A. Part I in the Academic Year 1992. She appeared at the B.A. Part I examination in 1992, B.A. Part II examination in the year 1993 and B.A. Part-III examination in the year 1994. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking admission to the Special B.T.C. Training for the year 1994. In the mark-sheet enclosed by the petitioner, while seeking admission to the aforesaid Special B.T.C. Training Course, the total marks obtained by the petitioner in B.A. Part-I, B.A. Part-II and B.A. Part-III examinations were indicated as 1045 out of 1800 marks. It is on the basis of the aforesaid marks that the quality point marks of the writ petitioner were determined by the District Basic Education Officer and she was selected for the Special B.T.C. Training Course. After successful completion of the training, the writ petitioner was granted appointment as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at Deokali, in Block Gola, of district Gorakhpur. Thereafter, a verification was sought by the District Basic Education Officer from the University about the marks obtained by the writ petitioner in the B.A. Examinations for the reason that a direction to make payment of salary to the Assistant Teachers could be given only after verification of the marks. The University sent a communication dated 23 January 2007 to the District Basic Education Officer that the mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner did not reflect the correct marks obtained by the petitioner. As a consequence thereto, a notice dated 14 February 2007 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against her. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice. Thereafter the District Basic Education Officer passed an order dated 29 September 2007 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. It is this order dated 29 September 2007 that was assailed by the appellant in the writ petition.
(3.) The learned Judge examined the Tabulation Chart of B.A. Part I, B.A. Part-II and B.A. Part-III examination produced by the University and noted that in B.A. Part I the petitioner secured only 215 marks whereas in the mark-sheet that was submitted before the District Basic Education Officer, while seeking admission to the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004 the petitioner had indicated 315 marks. The learned Judge, therefore, noted that the total marks obtained by the petitioner would come to only 945 out of 1800 as against 1045 out of 1800 indicated by the petitioner. The learned Judge however, observed as there was nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner was responsible in submitting a forged mark-sheet, particularly when there was a variation in the Tabulation Charts produced by the College and the University, it could not be ruled out that the a wrong mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the learned Judge directed the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur to find out whether the petitioner could have been admitted in the aforesaid course on the basis of the marks actually obtained by the petitioner. In other words, the District Basic Education Officer was required to find out whether the petitioner could have been granted admission to the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004 if she had obtained 945 marks out of 1800. The learned Judge further directed that in case the petitioner could have been granted admission then in that case the petitioner should be allowed to continue on the post of Assistant Teacher and to that extent the impugned order dated 29 September 2007 would stand quashed. However, in case a finding was recorded that the petitioner could not have been granted admission to the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004 then in that case the petition shall stand dismissed. During the course of hearing of this Special Appeal, the Court directed the learned counsel appearing for the University to produce the Tabulation Charts of the University as also the College and having noticed from even a bare perusal of the Tabulation Charts of the University and the College that there was overwriting and interpolation in the Tabulation Chart of the College as a result of which the marks obtained by the petitioner in B.A. Part I increased from 215 to 315 and as the petitioner alone stood benefited by the said increase, the Court issued notice to the appellant to explain why the Court should not delete that part of the direction of the learned Judge by which the District Basic Education Officer was required to determine whether the petitioner could have been granted admission to the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004 if she had actually got 945 marks out of 1800. The Court also required the appellant to explain why the Court should not direct for holding of an enquiry to determine the correct facts.;