HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have ventilated the common cause in this writ petition. Admittedly, all the petitioners are the registrants of the concerned Employment Exchanges and their names were sponsored to the District Primary School Council, Burdwan for the post of the primary teacher in a primary school within the said District in the year 1999.
(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY, the recruitment process was conducted on the basis of the rules regulating the recruitment and leave of the teachers in primary school in West Bengal framed vide a notification no. 768-Edn (p) dated 22 November, 1991 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 106 & 60 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. In terms of the provision contained in Rule 9 thereof, all the sponsored candidates were allowed to produce the testimonial/certificates for the computation of their marks in the score sheet prepared for such purposes. The petitioners are, thereafter, selected for the interview and were empanelled for appointment. In facts, they were issued the appointment letter upon necessary approval from the Director of the School Education, West Bengal. Subsequently, a doubt was raised as to the genuinity of the marksheet submitted at the time of submission of the testimonial/certificates which upon prima facie satisfaction was appears to be fake and forged to the authorities. The petitioners alleged that the authorities cannot prevent them from discharging their duties without taking recourse to law and also without giving an opportunity of hearing. They further alleged that no order of termination of their services has been issued by the authorities as yet. The Burdwan District Primary School Council (Council for short), however, discloses various documents in the affidavit-in-opposition relating to the issuance of the show cause notice and an order of termination/cancellation of their appointment letter. According to the Council, the petitioners submitted the forged marksheet for the purpose of computation of marks in terms of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules by pretending that they obtained first division marks in the Madhyamik Pariksha or equivalent from the recognized institution. However, the marksheets which are produced by the petitioners at the time of making application, does not reveal that they obtained first division marks but much lower thereto, which on computation, as per Rule 9 of the said Recruitment Rules, does not bring the petitioners within the zone of consideration for interview far to speak of zone of appointment. It is further stated that the Council has lodged an FIR with the concerned police station for taking the cognizance of such offences committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioners are enlarged on bail. Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the moment, the appointment is given the authorities cannot act as per its whims but to follow the procedure of disciplinary action. He succinctly argues that the order of termination without following the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Lastly, he submits that the petitioners are the victims of the conspiracy hatched by some persons to show their animosity. In support of the contention, that the statutory authority should follow the procedure before termination of the service, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India and anr. Vs. Shardindu reported in (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 456, in case of P.S.E.B and ors. Vs. Leela Singh reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 161 and a decision rendered by employment in case of Gurucharan Bid vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) ESC 2363 (Cal). Mr. Arup Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Council, however, submits that the petitioners obtained the appointment by committing fraud upon the authorities and as such, no person should be allowed to reap the benefit which he obtained by submitting fake and forged documents.
(3.) HE submits that the fraud vitiates all solemn act and, therefore, the order of termination passed by the authority cannot be faulted with and placed reliance upon a judgment in case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 605. He further submits that on identical facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that the appointment is liable to be cancelled if the same has been obtained on production of the fake and fabricated marksheet and placed reliance upon an unreported judgment in case of District Primary School Council, WB vs. Mritunjoy Das & Ors. (Civil Appeal 6007 of 2011 decided on July 27, 2011). Lastly, it is submitted that the show cause notice was issued to all the petitioners and the petitioner no.2 filed reply to the said show cause but did not appear on the date fixed for hearing and as such, the authorities proceeded to pass an order which cannot be said to have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing or in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.;