LAKSHMANAN, C. J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the respective parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants I and 2 against the judgment dated 12. 9. 1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the petitioner-appellants are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition was filed by the appellants to quash the order dated 24. 12. 1993 and to reinstate them in service as substantive teacher Gr. III with all consequential benefits and to declare the decree of B. Ed. obtained by them from the Avadh University, Faizabad in the year 1987 as legal and valid for all the purposes to come and for other incidental reliefs. The case of the appellants is that the appellant No. 1 Maharaj Singh passed his secondary school examination in the year 1975 and the higher secondary school examination in the year 1976. Thereafter he passed his B. A. and M. A. degrees in the years 1979 and 1981 from the University of Rajasthan. After doing M. A. the appellant No. 1 being an unemployed person preferred to do the job-oriented degree i. e. the degree of B. Ed. and for doing so, he submitted an application form in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Avadh University, Faizabad and that he was given admission and thereafter he was enrolled by the said University and when the examinations were held he also appeared and got through in the same with second division. In support of the above contention, the appellant No. 1 has filed Annexures 2, 2a and 3. Likewise the second appellant after passing his secondary school examination in the year 1978 and higher secondary school examination in the year 1979 and after doing B. A. applied for B. Ed. course from the said University in the year 1987. He also produced a copy of the marks-sheet and the certificate as Annexures 4 and 4a. It is the case of the appellants that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents, both the appellants applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III and they were selected for the post after going through the entire selection process including interview. The appellant No. 1 was appointed in Govt. Primary School Chavand vide order dated 18. 11. 88 which falls under the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Sarada, District Udaipur. Similarly, the appellant No. 2 was also selected on 7. 6. 1989/28. 6. 1989 on the post of Teacher Gr. III at Primary School, Blanchakpura, Panchayat Samiti Roopwas (Annexure-6 ). Both the appellants joined the duties on 18. 11. 1988 and 1. 7. 1989 respectively on their respective place of posting. The appellants were served with a show cause notice to the effect of submitting the forged degree of B. Ed. of Avadh University and in pursuance to the same, both the appellants requested that in order to remove suspicion about the degree of B. Ed. , the same may be got verified from the Avadh University, Faijabad. According to the appellants, they produced the degree certificates and that it was found that the degree obtained by the appellants are correct and true on the basis of the vertification of the records of the University. While so, both the appellants received another show cause notice dated 27. 6. 1993 to the effect of submitting the clarification about the degree of B. Ed. of Avadh University. The appellants submitted their clarification on 5. 7. 1993 and also referred about the earlier verification from the Avadh University, Faizabad. Another show cause notice dated 8. 11. 1993 was issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sewar. The appellants again submitted their clarification on 16. 11. 1993 to the same effect of clarification made earlier. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 again sent a letter for sending the verification of the degree of the appellants and also sent a verification letter to the Avadh University, Faizabad and the Avadh University, Faizabad again sent the clarification letter dated 13. 10. 1993 to the respondent No. 2 making it clear that both the appellants had passed the B. Ed. examination from the affiliated college of the University (Annexure-13 ). As per the case, the respondents without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants, passed the impugned order dated 24. 12. 1993 by which the services of the appellants were terminated without assigning and speaking and firm reason therein. (Annexure-14 and 14a ). Being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 24. 12. 1993 both the appellants filed the writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in passing the impugned termination order dated 24. 12. 1993. A reply was filed by the non-petitioner No. 1. It is submitted in the reply that from a bare perusal of the document Annexure-2 produced by the petitioners, it is clear that the Roll No. 4761 has been mentioned therein and in Annexure-2b, Roll No. L-47561 has been mentioned and that it has been shown that the degree of B. Ed. was issued by the Avadh University at the Centre Ka. Su. Saket Post Graduate College, Faizabad whereas in the document Annexure-13, the name of the college is only Ka. Su. Saket College, Faizabad, which prima facie creates clear cut doubt regarding genuineness of the documents and it leads to some doubt of their being forged. According to the respondents, the appellants in fact did not complete their degree of B. Ed. nor they obtained such degree of B. Ed. from Avadh University, Faizabad. According to them, this contention is fully supported by the document Annexure-4 which indicates that the marksheet of B. Ed. produced by the appellants pertains to `kishan Post Graduate College, Behraich' and not issued by the Avadh University as stated by the appellants. Again perusal of Annexure-13 it is clear that the degree from `kishan Post Graduate College, Gonda and this contention of the answering non- petitioner is also substantiated by a letter No. A. V. /go. /1993/191/93 dated 22. 6. 1993 sent by the Chancellor of Avadh University, which has made clear that both the appellants never undergo training of B. Ed. from that University and they were never issued any B. Ed. degree by that University. Thus, it is submitted by the respondents that the entire case of the appellants stands falsified and further proves that they have produced entirely a forged degree. A detailed reply was also filed by the respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed separate reply affidavits denying the allegations contained in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. K. Jain, as he then was), dismissed the writ petition as aforesaid.
(3.) THE main grievance of Shri R. K. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellants is that the services of the appellants have been terminated by the respondents without affording opportunity of hearing their grievances. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the certificates produced by them are genuine and that the case put forward by them therefore, should be accepted and relied. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submitted that the appellants were given opportunity by issuing notices on 27. 6. 1993 and 8. 11. 1993 and the appellants tried to clarify the genuineness of the marks sheets and degree but on an enquiry made by the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, the Vice Chancellor, Audh University vide his letter dated 22. 6. 1993 has informed that the appellants did not undergo training of B. Ed and they were not issued any such degrees by the said University and, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid letter, the services of the appellants were terminated. In view of the stand of the respondents, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants. During the pendency of the writ petition and at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants was asked to produce the original documents relating to B. Ed. examination. However, the appellants have not produced the original degrees awarded to satisfy the conscience of the Court. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge came to the only conclusion that the termination of the services of the appellants for want of genuine certificate or degree is perfectly in order and cannot be said to be illegal. We have perused the entire pleadings and also the documents filed and considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. Even at the time of hearing, we directed the learned counsel for the appellants to place before this Court the original degree certificate of B. Ed. said to have been issued by the Avadh University, Faizabad. The learned counsel for the appellants expressed his inability to do so and has argued that their certificates should be taken as genuine documents and the matter be considered accordingly on merits. As already noticed, vide letter dated 22. 6. 93, the Avadh University has clearly stated that the appellants did not undergo training of B. Ed. and that they were not issued any degree of B. Ed. by the said University, we are of the opinion that no further proof is necessary to dislodge the case of the appellants. It is the specific case of denial by the University that the said University has issued degree certificate of B. Ed. to both the appellants. In our opinion, the certificates produced by the appellants cannot at all be said to be genuine and this Court has no option but to come to the conclusion that they have not undergone the training of B. Ed. from Avadh University, Faizabad. The appellants in our opinion, have not come to the court with clean hands. Their case is falsified by the letter dated 22. 6. 93 issued by the Avadh University. As already seen several opportunities were given to the appellants to show cause and notices were issued to them on 26. 3. 93 and 8. 11. 93 to clarify the position and to produce the genuine marksheet and degree. The appellants have miserably failed to do so. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition are correct and we do not find any reason to differ with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs. . ;