- (1.) Initially, the appellant had opted on 26th June, 1990 for Contributory Provident Fund under the DCRB scheme. Subsequently, he revised such option on 16th January, 1992 and opted for the Government Provident Fund. This would be evident from the document available at page 28 of the paper book which is a communication by the Teacher-in-Charge addressed to the concerned District Inspector of School.
(2.) Since the position has fallen foul before the Authorities, he was posed to the fore of the Writ Court at the first instance. This saw an order passed by an Hon ble Single Judge on 22nd February, 2007 in connection with W.P. 11396 (W) of 1999 whereby the Hon ble Single Judge referred the entire issue for decision before the Secretary, Education Department. It would be pertinent to note that there was a finding by the Hon ble Single Judge in paragraph 4 of His Lordship s order which reads as under:- ..But it appears from annexure p-2, page-14 to the supplementary affidavit to the writ application that the petitioner had submitted those option forms on January 16, 1992 that is within time .. His Lordship by way of disposing of the application directed the respondent No. 2 (in the said writ petition) to reconsider the claim of the appellant in accordance with law treating the writ application along with the supplementary affidavit as his representation. The said application was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case as observed by His Lordship.
(3.) In terms of the direction passed by the Hon ble Single Judge on 22nd February, 2007 the matter came before the respondent No. 3 in the present appeal (who happened to be respondent No. 2 in the said writ petition) in the manner that we have noticed hereinabove. The respondent No. 3 on 5th December, 2007 (page 52 of the paper book) refused the prayer of the appellant and amongst other findings held:- .In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, the revised option allegedly exercised by the petitioner on 16-1-1992 cannot be taken cognizance of. The option exercised by the petitioner on 26-10-1999 is not valid as it was submitted beyond the permissible period .. Furthermore respondent No. 3 came to the following findings:- .. It is a settled principle that if any pertinent point is missed out in the original writ application and if that point is relevant for the purpose of determination of the matter, then it can be submitted before a Court of law through a supplementary affidavit. But a supplementary affidavit cannot be used for contradicting the averments made in the original writ application. In the instant case, the petitioner has completely contradicted in the supplementary affidavit the averments made in the original writ application. The statements made by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit are, therefore, not acceptable . This saw the second trip for the appellant before this Court in W.P. 18357 (W) of 2008. This time on 31st August, 2009 the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the following aspects:- .. No right can be created on the basis of a mistake nor could the District Inspector of Schools create any right in favour of the writ petitioner by acting illegally. Admittedly, the petitioner exercised an option on 26th October, 1994 . the genuineness of which is gravely in doubt for reasons already discussed that is the alleged option on 16th January, 1992. After we have seen the background facts as appearing from the records, we would now advert to the submissions made at the Bar.;