- (1.) The two writ petitions being C. W. P. Nos. 15019 & 17499 of 2015, involving identical issues, were heard together and therefore, a common decision thereupon is being taken through the present judgment. The relevant facts, which need to be noticed for adjudicating upon the aforementioned writ petitions, are that in December 2012, the State Transport Department, Government of Haryana, invited applications for appointment of Heavy Vehicle Drivers (on contract basis). The prescribed qualifications were that a candidate should be Matriculate with Hindi/Sanskrit from a recognized Board or University, should be holding a valid transport vehicle driving license and having a minimum of two years' experience of driving a heavy goods vehicle including proficiency in driving heavy passenger motor vehicle or ten years' experience in driving a vehicle in the Armed Forces.
(2.) In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner(s) applied for consideration of their candidature and being successful in the selection process, were offered appointment, however, subject to the following rider :- "Attested copies of educational and professional qualifications and Matriculation certificates shall be furnished. The documents pertaining to your qualification, experience, age and caste/category, as claimed by you in the application form shall be got checked/verified by the concerned General Manager, Haryana Roadways. If it is found that there is material discrepancy in the educational/professional qualifications, age, caste, reservation benefit under Exserviceman or outstanding sportsman etc. and experience that you had claimed in the application then this offer of appointment shall be treated as null and void." A perusal of the terms and conditions of appointment, as quoted above, show that the appointment of the petitioner(s) was subject to verification of their claimed educational/professional qualifications etc. and if, after verification, it was found that there was material discrepancy in the same, then the offer of their appointment shall be treated as null and void. After the verification of the petitioners' Matriculation Certificates, it was found that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the Board), from where the petitioner(s) had claimed to have passed their Matriculation examination, was not recognized. On that basis, a Show Cause Notice was issued to them as to why their services may not be dispensed with, to which they filed reply, after consideration of which, the impugned orders terminating the services of the petitioner(s), were passed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, was a Board, which was recognized by the Government and in support of such contention, relied upon a Certificate issued by the Secretary of the Board, wherein it is mentioned that the Board is recognized by Uttar Pradesh Educational Act, 1921. After considering the submissions made by the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the present petition must fail. As per the terms of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement, only those candidates, who had passed their Matriculation examination from a recognized Board, were to be considered eligible for appointment. On repeated queries posed by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner (s) was not able to show any document by any statutory Authority granting recognition to the Board, from where the petitioner(s) claimed to have passed their Matriculation examination. In fact, in an affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India, it is specifically mentioned therein that the Board is not recognized by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India. It is further mentioned in the affidavit that the Government of India had written to the Government of Madhya Pradesh to register an FIR against the Board for falsely claiming recognition from the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India, on the basis of a forged document. The affidavit further goes on to state that an FIR under Sections 420, 467 IPC has been lodged against the Management of the Board and during the course of investigation, several forged documents have been recovered from the office of the Board and that the Director of the Board was also arrested.;