G.S.SINGHVI,J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the order date, 18.1.94 issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Udaipurwati, district Jhunjhunu, where by the service of the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Teacher Gr.III. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order because a common order is under challenge and writ petitions are founded on almost identical grounds.
(2.) PETITIONER , Shankar Lal passed M.Com. examination from the University of Rajasthan. He was appointed as Teacher Gr.III for a period of 30 days by an order issued on 18.2.86 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti Udaipurwati. Term of his appointment was extended by another 30 days. This was followed by temporary appointment of the petitioner for a period of six months which according to the petitioner, was accorded to him after due selection. Term of temporary appointment of the petitioner was also extended till the end of academic session of 1987 -88 or till the availability of regularly selected persons. In the year 1989 the petitioner was selected for regular appointment as Teacher Gr.III by the District Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. The Executive Officer -cum -Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu issued order dated 1.5.89 and directed the petitioner to appear in Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati on 10.5.89 for appointment on probation for a period of two years with a condition that the petitioner has have to serve at least for a period of five years. Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati issued order dated 1.3.1989 appointing the petitioner as Teacher Gr.III in pay scale of Rs. 880 -1680/ -. Petitioner was confirmed in the service by order dated, 1.9.92 of the Administrator -cum -Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati. After he has rendered service for over 4 years and six months the impugned order has been issued by the Vikas Adhikari terminating the service of the petitioner on the basis of letter dated, 4.11.93 written by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that once the petitioner has been appointed after regular selection it is not open to the respondents to terminate his service without giving him opportunity of hearing. Plea of the petitioner is that on the basis of order dated. 1.5.89 issued by the Chief Executive Officer -cum -Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunti and order date -13.7.89 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati, a substantive right has come to vest in him to serve as Teacher Gr.III. With this confirmation, this right has become perfect and the same cannot be taken away except after following the procedure established by law. Petitioner has submitted that before entering the service he has passed B.Ed. examination from Mathili University (Mathili Vishwa Vidyapith) Darbhanga. This degree of B.Ed. has been recognised by the Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs vide notification No. P. /4/52 -CC aged, 20th September, 1952. He had produced all his documents before being appointed in service and by treating him to be eligible, the District Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu had selected him. He had not played any fraud with the respondents, therefore, he cannot be thrown out of job without any inquiry and without compliance of the principles of natural justice. No charge sheet has been served upon him alleging any fraud on his part and therefore, the impugned order should be declared as void.
(3.) IN their reply, respondents have stated that the petitioner secured M. Com. qualification from University of Rajasthan. They have disputed the petitioner's claim that he has passed Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed, examination). According to the respondents, the petitioner has secured Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed. Examination) from Mathili University Bihar, which is not recognised as a University under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the degree issued by Mathili University, Bihar is not approved for the purpose of appointment in Government service. Reliance has been placed by the respondents on a Government. Circular No. F. (7) (4)/Shiksha -3/89, dated, 14.8.89 as well as the Circular dated, 26.6.91 issued by the University Grants Commission. Plea of the respondents is that Mathili University is a bogus educational institution and the degrees awarded by it are fraudulent. Respondents, have pleaded that the termination of the service of the petitioner has been ordered because he had been selected on the basis of a fraudulent degree issued by a University which has not been recognised. Respondents have pleaded that this Court will not invoke extra -ordinary jurisdiction in favour of a person who had secured employment on the basis of a bogus degree.;