High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 35418 of 2001  RD-AH 13529 (3 August 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35418 of 2001
Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta
State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
I have heard Sri Y.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri B.K. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 and 4 and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the respondent no. 4, the Principal, Sri SNKK Higher Secondary School, Sarai Mira, Kannauj, whereby the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher have been terminated. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools and pay him his salary.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents no. 3 and 4 the issuance of the order dated 15.5.2001 has been denied. It has been stated that the said order is forged as the petitioner worked on temporary basis from the year 1984 to 1986 where after he resigned and in his place one Rajendra Singh Rajpoot was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 4.8.1986, which appointment was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 31.3.1989, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-C.A.1 to the counter affidavit. It has been stated that after 1986 the petitioner has never worked in the institution of the respondents no. 3/4. The respondents contend that it was only after the institution was brought under the grant-in-aid list in the year 1992 the petitioner has raised his claim for being included in the list of teachers of the institution. The petitioner further claims implementation of the order dated 21.12.1997 issued by the District Inspector of Schools. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools, the issuance of the said letter has been denied and it has been stated that the same is forged. As such, in the absence of any such instruction/order having been issued by the District Inspector of Schools, no mandamus can be issued to comply with the same.
It is very surprising that in the entire writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere stated the he has signed the attendance register after the year 1986 nor has any proof of his having worked in the institution after 1986 been filed except for certain representations given by him in the year 1998, 1999 and 2000. The letters issued by the District Inspector of Schools are also said to be forged. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has only asserted that the petitioner was permitted to sign the attendance register till the year 1998. It is not understood as to why the petitioner kept waiting for next eight years to file the first representation. The appointment letter filed alongwith the writ petition has also been denied by the respondents. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the approval was granted by any educational authority to the appointment of the petitioner. All the documents that have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been denied by the respondents. The order dated 15.5.2001 is also said to be fabricated by the petitioner for the purposes of filing this writ petition.
In the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, the prayers made in this writ petition do not deserve to be granted. Besides this in view of the fact that the petitioner has come up with a case which prima-facie appears to be based on forged and fabricated documents and has himself not produced any such order or document to show that his appointment was ever validly approved by the educational authorities nor has it been explained as to why the petitioner kept quiet for several years and allegedly worked without payment of salary hence in my view, the petitioner should also be saddled with costs for filing this frivolous writ petition based on documents which are categorically stated by the respondents to be forged and fabricated and also appear to be so.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs, which this Court assesses at Rs. 5,000/-. The costs shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of this Court within two months. In case if the same is not deposited, the Registrar General of this Court shall issue necessary instructions to the District Magistrate, Kannuaj to recover the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. On the cost being realized, the half of the same shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and the remaining half deposited with the "Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre".
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.