- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P. -III for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioners grievance in this writ application is against the order dated 31.05.2006 (annexure -10) whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated purportedly on a misconceived ground that the certificate produced by him mentioning his date of birth was a false and fabricated certificate. Sri Rajiv Ranjan would explain that the stand taken by the respondents is in itself misconceived. The inference drawn by the respondents against the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner pertaining to his educational qualifications and containing his date of birth, is said to be based on an information obtained from the Board which has issued the certificates to the petitioner and according to the alleged information, the petitioners date of birth is said to have been stated as 15.07.1970 instead of 15.07.1972. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had received a notice from the respondents calling upon him to explain the purported discrepancy, the petitioner had replied by requesting the respondent authorities to obtain a proper information from the Board and its concerned authorities and had reiterated that the certificates produced by the petitioner, were infact genuine and bona -fide documents which the Board had issued to him in confirmation of the fact that he had passed the examinations. Inspite of such request, the respondents had proceeded to terminate the petitioners service. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner had applied before the Board under the Right to Information Act seeking information as to his date of birth entered in the official records of the Board and the reply thereto received by him from the concerned authorities of the Board reiterates and confirms that the petitioners date of birth as entered in the official records of the Board and as recorded in the certificates, is 15.07.1972. Learned counsel adds that this being the factual position, the respondents could not have taken a unilateral decision without proper verification of the facts regarding the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that a similar issue was raised by a few other teachers whose services were terminated by the same impugned order, before this court in W.P.(S) No. 3058 of 2006 and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners therein, this Court vide its order dated 04.12.2007, had directed the respondents to re -consider the issue after giving the petitioners adequate opportunity of being heard and to take an appropriate decision on the same.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent State would submit that the petitioner cannot find any fault in the impugned order terminating his service in view of the fact that before taking such decision, the petitioner was given notice to explain but he did not avail the opportunity. The order for terminating the services, which was taken not only in the case of the petitioner but also in the cases of several other teachers, was on bona -fide and genuine grounds in as much as, the information obtained from the concerned Board which had purportedly issued the certificates to the petitioner and the other teachers, were verified and on the basis of the information furnished by the concerned Boards, it was found that there was discrepancy in the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner and the other teachers, as compared to the entry in their respective certificates.;