N.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the termination order dt. 21.3.94 (Anx.3) and the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued in terms of Moinuddin's case.
(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner obtained a degree of Shiksha Shastri from the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya in the year 1987. It is alleged that he applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III advertised by the Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu vide Advertisement No. 1/89 and on being selected by the District Establishment Committee for the said post. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide order dt. 1.5.89 (Anx. 1) and he joined duty on 2.8.89 (Anx.2). It is also alleged that the recognition of Shiksha Shashtri granted by the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya was withdrawn by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dt. 30.10.92 and consequent thereto order dt. 1.10.93 the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu directed to terminate the services of the candidates, after giving them one month's notice, who possessed such degree. Thereafter a notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner replied the same. After considering the reply, the petitioner was terminated from service, vide order dt. 21.3.94 (Anx.3) w.e.f. 23.2.94. The petitioner has further alleged that he was pressed to seek resignation but that is irrelevant as the same was not accepted. The petitioner has alleged that the Government vide orders Anx.4 and 5 directed to impart training to those teachers who were given substantive appointment and were in service, and preferred the writ petition. This writ petition has been filed on 30.3.94. Vide order dt. 1.4.94, Mr. Bishnoi was directed to accept notice. In pursuance of the notice, reply has been filed stating that it is not a case of derecognition of degree from the retrospective effect as alleged by the petitioner but in the present case the petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of forged documents as no such institution in the name of Varanashey Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya Varanashey was in existence in the year 1989 when the petitioner said to obtained a Shiksha Shastri Degree. It is stated that according to the orders, of this Hon'ble Court the State Government took cognizance and has conducted enquiry and in the enquiry it has been found that the said Institution is not in existence from the year 1974. The non - petitioners have denied that the recognition of the said Shiksha Shastri degree was withdrawn by the Government vide order dt. 30.10.92. It is also stated that the petitioner has resigned due to the reason that the fraud committed by the petitioner while obtaining the appointment on the basis of forged documents, has been open out. It has been further stated that the petitioner's case is not covered by the orders Anx. 4 and 5, as the State Government is bound or there is no obligation on the State to provide training to those persons, who have obtained appointment fraudulently. It has been stated that the petitioner's case cannot be said to be similar to the Moinuddin's case and the relief granted in Monuddin's case cannot be granted to the petitioner. It has prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with cost.
(3.) AS agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.;