Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Brigraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
(2.) On 3.10.2017, this writ petition was heard at length and the following order was passed: "Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neeraj Shukla for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as assistant teacher in the respondent no.5 institution since beginning. She has no B.T.C. training certificate. By letter No.3188-89/97-98 dated 31.12.1997, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, granted exemption to the petitioner from the requirement of B.T.C. training in terms of G.O.No.860/15(13)/97-1499/77 dated 15.5.1997.The petitioner had completed five years of service as on 13.4.1997. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, an order being letter No.7379-82/98-99 dated 24.12.1997, was passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, granting exemption to the petitioner from B.T.C. training. Thereafter, an advertisement dated 23.7.1999 was issued by the Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur to fill up two posts of assistant teacher. The petitioner was selected in the said selection and an order dated 6.10.1999 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer directing to issue appointment letter. In compliance to the said order, the Manager of the institution issued an appointment letter dated 16.10.1999 to the petitioner and since then the services of the petitioner stood regularised. The institution in question was included in grant-in-aid list in 2006-07 session and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the MR at Serial no.5, which was forwarded to the government, but without any reason the authorities stopped payment of salary to the petitioner. No heed was paid by the authorities despite several representations and as such the petitioner filed Writ-A No.55040 of 2010, which was disposed of by order dated 8.9.2010. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 8.9.2010, the petitioner filed a representation which was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 on the ground that the exemption granted by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 31.12.1997, does not find mention in the despatch register and as such it is forged. Such an inference drawn by the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as merely for the reason that the said letter does not find mention in the despatch register, it cannot be said to be forged. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of this Court dated 7.3.2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41838 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others), Om Prakash v. District Inspector of Schools, Badaun and another,1982 UPLBEC 232 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 10 SCC 282. Learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, submits that the exemption letter dated 31.12.1997 bears an alleged despatch number which does not find mention in the despatch register. This shows that no such letter was ever issued by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi to the petitioner. Thus, this letter is a forged letter and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the forged letter was ab-initio void. That apart, there is no statutory provision either relaxing necessary requirement of B.T.C. training certificate or empowering any authority to grant any such relaxation. There are some decisions on this point of this Court, which shall be placed on the next date of hearing. It is further pointed out that the exemption letter dated 31.12.1997 is forged on own showing of the petitioner as evident by alleged consequential letter being letter No.7379-82/98-99 dated 24.12.1997, which contains the reference of the aforesaid exemption letter dated 31.12.1997. It is wholly impossible that the alleged letter of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, dated 24.12.1997 may contain a reference to the alleged exemption letter dated 31.12.1997. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file copy of the relevant Government order dated 15.5.1997, as has been referred in the alleged exemption letter dated 31.12.1997. The respondents are also directed to produce the record relating to the matter in question as well as the relevant Government Orders. List peremptorily on 10.10.2017".
(3.) On 13.10.2017, this writ petition was again heard at length and the following order was passed: "Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Mrigraj Singh and Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 and Sri P.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.5. Pursuant to order dated 10.10.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Government Order No.860/15(13)/97-1499(8)/77, dated 15.5.97, which is reproduced below: Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced in original a letter/certificate No.3188-89/97-98, dated 31.12.1997 said to have been issued by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) 5th Division, Varanasi, granting exemption to the petitioner from B.T.C. Training on the basis of the aforequoted Government Order. This certificate/letter is addressed to the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, and its copies are shown to have been sent to Vitta Evam Lekha Adhikari, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Jaunpur and Prabhandhak Smt. Pati Raji Devi Rang Bahadur Singh Kanya Junior High School, Kalika Nagar, Golhana Mau, Jaunpur and Up-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur. The aforesaid original letter appears to have been allegedly sent to the Prabandhak of the respondent no.5 -Institution. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 it is stated that the aforesaid exemption certificate dated 31.12.1997 was submitted by the petitioner and on verificationfrom the office of the Assistant Director of Education Basic, Varanasi, Region - Varanasi, it was found that no such letter has been dispatched through dispatch No.3188-89 on 31.12.1997. That apart the consequential letter No.7379-82/98-99, dated 24.12.1997 containing the reference of the aforesaid alleged certificate dated 31.12.1997 was issued by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur. This is quite impossible that a letter by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur dated 24.12.1997, may be issued on the basis of the aforesaid alleged certificate dated 31.12.1997. Thus, on the very face of it the alleged certificate dated 31.12.1997 appears to be a forged piece of paper which is the foundation of the entire claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 has neither produced the record nor affidavit has been filed giving reasons for not producing the record. Since the matter is serious and the approach of the authorities in assisting the Court in the matter is not appreciable and as such the Court called upon Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, who is present in Court; to assist in the matter. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that some breathing time may be granted to file an affidavit and to produce the record. He further states that factual and legal position shall be stated by means of affidavit which shall be filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. As prayed, put up on 25.10.2017 to enable the respondent nos.2,3 and 4 to comply with the order dated 10.10.2017. The alleged certificate bearing dispatch No.3188-89/97-98, dated 31.12.1997 as produced by learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to be kept in sealed cover by the Registrar General of this Court which shall be produced on the next date fixed".;