High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
R.C. Singh v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - A No. - 29770 of 1992  RD-AH 18770 (11 December 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29770 of 1992
Ram Charan Singh and another
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
In the district of Mirzapur, there is an institution, known as Sardar Patel Inter College, Kolana, Chunar, Mirzapur. Said institution is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The institution in question is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. Selection and appointment, including promotion, on the post of teachers has to be made as per provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and the allied provisions framed thereunder. Petitioners claim that in the institution in question Ram Lakhan Singh and Ram Sahai Singh, who were working as L.T. Grade Teachers, attained the age of superannuation. Petitioners claim that the vacancies, so caused, were notified to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board through the District Inspector of Schools and the said requisition was duly received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Petitioners claim that on 28.08.1991, letter was written on behalf of the Management of the institution to the District Inspector of Schools, seeking permission for making appointment on the posts in question, Reminder, it has been contended, was sent on 11.12.1991. Petitioners have contended that, as no regular selection was made by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, the Management of the institution on 12.01.1992 invited applications from the eligible candidates by publishing the vacancies on the notice board of the College. Petitioners claim to have applied pursuant thereto. Categorical mention has been made by petitioners that on 24.01.1992 resolution was passed and thereafter, petitioners were selected on the basis of quality point marks; same day appointment letter is said to have been issued and the petitioners are alleged to have joined on the respective posts on the same day. Papers with regard to petitioners' appointment is said to have been transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools, along with necessary documents for approval, but no decision was taken on the same and objection was raised by Accounts officer to the effect that at the relevant time there was ban imposed by the State Government on appointments, as such approval to the petitioners' appointment could not have been given by the District Inspector of Schools. At the said juncture, writ petition had been filed before this Court and this Court on 11.08.1992 passed order directing payment of salary to petitioners within one month. The petitioners, on the strength of interim order continued to function. Subsequently, said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 27.05.1999. It appears that during the said period, petitioners continued to function and the authorities were unaware of the order passed by this Court, and in between order of regularisation had been passed in favour of petitioners and thereafter when factum of dismissal of writ petition came to the notice of the authorities, petitioners' salary had been withheld. Recall application, which had been moved, was allowed, and thereafter counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools., and therein specific stand has been taken to the effect that appointment of petitioners was clearly dehors the statutory Rules, which covered the field at the relevant time and qua the documents which have been filed on behalf of petitioners, it has been mentioned that the same are not available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and same had never been filed.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating those made in the writ petition, along with certain new facts. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of management supporting the version of petitioners. Impleadment application has also been filed on behalf of one Pawan Kumar Singh, pointing out that the appointment of petitioners was void and an outcome of fraud and manipulation. To this Impleadment application also, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Management has produced the original record.
After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the patties.
Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that the appointment of petitioners had been validly made strictly in accordance with law and even after present writ petition had been dismissed as infructuous, petitioners' claim for regularisation was considered and the benefit of regularisation has been extended to them, as such non-payment of salary is unjustifiable on the part of respondents, and as such in all eventuality, writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand countering the submissions made on behalf of petitioners, contended that entire claim of petitioners is based on fraud and manipulation and the petitioners' appointment is dehors the statutory provisions and on the strength of interim order, petitioners were receiving salary and the order dismissing writ petition as infructuous was never communicated to the authorities concerned, and during this period, if any order of regularisation has been passed, the same is of no consequence, as such writ petition, as it has been framed and drawn, deserves to be dismissed.
Sri D.S.M.Tripathi, Advocate, though Impleadment application filed through him has not been allowed, but under Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, he has been permitted to advance his arguments for assisting the Court to come to rightful conclusion. He has also contended that appointment of petitioners is dehors statutory provisions and the same was based on fraud and manipulation; and in this direction he has tried to demonstrate the same.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of manager has contended that appointments had been validly made and he also produced original records with regard to appointment of petitioners.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that on 30.06.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation by Ram Lakhan Singh and Ram Sahai Sinch, petitioners claim to have been appointed in the said vacancies after due notification to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board though the agency of the District Inspector of Schools, and said papers are said to be duly received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Categorical mention has been made in the counter affidavit that at no point of time any such papers were received and all these documents are farce and fictitious documents. Annexures- 2 and 3 to writ petition have been mentioned to be forged and fabricated documents. Annexure- 1 is not at all available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The Managing Committee has proceeded to make appointments on the basis of these documents, which have been seriously disputed by the District Inspector of Schools by terming the same as forged and fabricated. At this juncture relevant provisions which cover the filed in the matter of selection and appointment on the post of L.T. Grade Teachers at the point of time when appointment has been alleged to made, are being looked into. Petitioners claim that their appointments had been made under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. Under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982, no procedure has been provided for and this Court in the case of Charu Chandra Tiwari v. District Inspector of Schools., 1990 UPLBEC 160, has taken the view that while proceeding to make selection and appointment under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982, procedure as provided in clause 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 is to be followed. For ready reference the provisions of clauses 2 and 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 are being quoted below:
"2. Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made.-The Management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the following cases, namely:
(a) in the case of substantive vacancy existing n the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise;
(b) in the case of leave vacancy, where the whole or unexpired portion of the leaves is for a period not exceeding two months on the date of such commencement;
(c) where a vacancy of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) comes into existence within a period of two months subsequent to the date of such commencement.
5. Ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment.- (1) Where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with Clause (2) to (5).
(2) The Management shall, as soon as may be, inform the District Inspector of Schools about the details of the vacancy and such Inspector shall invite applications from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two newspapers having adequate circulations in Uttar Pradesh.
(3) Every applicatioin referred to in clause (2) shall be addrssed to the District Inspector of Schools and shall be accompanied -
(a) by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to such Inspector;
(b) by a self addressed envelope bearing postal stamp for purposes of registration.
(4) The District Inspector of Schools. Shall cause the best candidates selected on the basis of quality point marks specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality point marks may be done on remuneration basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector.
(5) If more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institutions,the names of the selected teachers and names of the institution shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. This process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted.
6. Eligibility for promotion.- Every appointment of teacher under paragraph 4 or 5 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) The candidate sought to be appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment must fulfil the essential qualifications laid down in Appendix A referred to in the Regulation (1) of Chapter II of Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
(b) The candidate sought to be appointed by direct recruitment under paragraph 5 shall not be related to any member of the Committee of Management .in the manner indicated in Schedule II to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
(c ) The candidate sought to be appointed by promotion under paragraph 4 must have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of commencement of 6this Order."
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would go to show that Management of the institution is empowered to make appointment by promotion or by direct recruitment of a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order against substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of the said Order caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise; and full fledged procedure has been provided for filling up the said vacancy and as per the said procedure, the Management has to notify the said vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools has to invite applications from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two newspapers having adequate circulations in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter based on the quality point marks, selection is to be made.
Said provision has been subject matter of interpretation in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada Versus Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, and others 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. In the said judgment different legislative changes brought in the Act have been examined qua the powers of ad hoc appointment and the manner in which such ad hoc appointment is to be made. The case in hand falls in first category of the cases, dealt with three period starting w.e.f. 31.07.1981 to 13.07.1992. Relevant extract is being quoted below:
"FIRST STAGE :,
29. First, I will take up and consider the power and procedure of ad hoc appointment of teacher or Principal either by promotion or by direct recruitment during the period beginning from 31st July 1992 after which date U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 came into force.
30. As stated earlier the purpose of the Act is to appoint teacher in the institutions to be selected by the Commission of the Board as the case may be. Section 16 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act but subject to the provisions of Sections 18, 21-B. 21-C, 21-D, 33 and 33-A of the Act, every appointment of teacher shall on or after 10th July, 1991 be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. Its sub section (2) further provides that every appointment of a teacher in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. However this Section 18 of the Act. Original Section 18 provided that where management has notified a vacancy to the Commission (a) the Commission has failed to recommended the name of any suitable candidate or (b) the post of teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then the management may appoint by direct' recruitment or promotion a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the person possessing qualifications prescribed under Intermediate Education Act or the regulation made there-under. However, this Section 18 did not provide the procedure to be followed for appointment of ad hoc teacher either by promotion or by direct recruitment. Since the Commission or the Board was not constituted, therefor the difficulty arose in making available teachers in the institutions and as such the Government by notification dated 31-7-1991, 11th September, 1991 and 30th January1992 issued separately, Removal of Difficulties Orders three Removal of Difficulties Orders know as First, Second and Third Removal of Difficulties Orders .
31. Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides as follows
"The Managell1ent of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions· of this Order in the case of substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise."
32. Paragraph 3 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides as
"Every promotion of an ad hoc teacher under Para 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board as the case may be joint the post."
33. Paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides;
"Every vacancy in the post of head of institution may be filled by promotion (a) in the case of an Intermediate College by the senior most teacher of the institution in the lecturer's grade. (b) in the case of High Schools raised to the level of Intermediate College by the Head Master of such High School and (c) in the case of Junior High School raised to the level of High School by the Head Master or such Junior High School"
34. Sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 4 of the order further provides that every vacancy in the post of teacher in the lecturers grade may be filled by ion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (grade).
35. Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 4 of the order are not relevant as we are informed that C. T. Grade has now been abolished.
36. Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provided where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4 of the order, same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with the procedure laid down in Clauses 2 to 5 of paragraph 5 of the order.
37. Second Removal of Difficulties Order provides for ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy in the posts of teachers caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise. Thus, these provisions show that Section 18 and First Removal of Difficulties Order, both independently empowers the Management of institution to make ad-hoc appointment of teachers in the institution. But Section 18 does not provide the method and manner of such appointment. Whereas Removal of Difficulties orders while empowering the management of the institutions to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis further lay down the procedure of such ad hoc appointment of teachers. In fact Section 18 as well as First Removal of Difficulties Order operate in one field and are part of one integrated integrated Scheme namely for providing ad hoc teachers who are urgently required in the institution. Thus, ad hoc appointment of teacher either under Section 18 or under the provisions of First Removal of Difficulties Orders has to be done in the manner laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the First of Difficulties Order, 1981.
38. Ad hoc appointment by promotion
When a substantive vacancy has been notified to the Commission and duly selected teacher is not available for appointment, controversy has arisen as to whether the management is required to appoint teacher either by direct recruitment or by promotion. The power of ad hoc appointment either by direct recruitment or by promotion can be exercised only when the management has notified the substantive vacancy to the Commission and the Commission has failed to recommend the name of suitable candidate within one year from the date of such notification or the posts of teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. Thus, one of the two conditions is sine qaa non for enabling the management to exercise the power to appoint a teacher on ad hoc basis, either by promotion or by direct recruitment in the institution. If the condition is absent such a power to appoint on ad hoc basis either by promotion or by direct recruitment is not available to the management of the institution. In case the pre-condition is found to be present, the management is first required to fill up the substantive vacancy by promotion on ad hoc basis from amongst the senior most teachers of the institution. Paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties order provides that every vacancy in the posts of teacher in lecturer grade shall be filled up by promotion of the senior most teachers in the institution in the trained graduate. Similarly, ever vacancy in the post of teacher in the trained graduate (grade) is to be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution from the trained undergraduate Grade C.T. (grade) (Now we are not concerned with its since it is reported abolished).
39. Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides that where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4 of the order, same may be filled by direct recruitment. Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Management to first fill up the vacancy by promotion on the basis of seniority alone. This method has to be restored to as the teachers are available in the institution and any other method of recruitment may cause disturbance in teaching of the institution which may affect the career of students. Another reasons why the vacancy has to be filled by ad hoc appointment by promotion is that it is a short term appointment in the sense that shortly a duly selected teacher would be available for appointment against the said vacancy. So long the posts can be filled under paragraph 4 of the Order by promotion it is not open to the Management to take resort to the power to appoint ad hoc teacher by direct recruitment under paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. In Charu Chandra Tiwari Vs. District Inspector of Schools, 1990 UPLBEC page 160, it was held that the Management has to fill the vacancy by ad hoc promotion of a senior most teacher of the same institution qualified for such appointment and ad hoc appointment through direct recruitment is permissible only in case no such teacher in the institution is available. This according to me lays down the correct view of law. I am, therefore, of the view that the existing substantive vacancy which has been notified to the omission and the condition provided under Section 18 of the Act is present, the vacancy has to be filled up firstly by promotion from amongst senior most teacher in next lower grade.
40. There is another aspect of the matter as to whether any approval or prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is required for ad hoc appointment by promotion or not. Neither the Act nor the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order provide for such prior approval or approval by the District Inspector of Schools in case of such ad hoc appointment by promotion. There is another reason for not taking approval of the District Inspector of Schools of such appointment because teacher working in the institution is already approved and thus no further or subsequent approval is needed for it and only intimation to the District Inspector of Schools is required to be given regarding such appointment. See Ram Kripal Pandey and another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad and others 1989 (2) UPLBEC page 98. However if it is found that senior most teacher has not been promoted, adequate power is given to the District Inspector of Schools under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Payment of Salary Act) to make enquiry in this respect. If found illegal, it goes without saying that he can stop payment of salary to such promotee.
Ad hoc appointment of teachers by Direct Recruitment
41. It has already been noticed that Section 18 of the Principal Act provides for power to appoint a teacher purely on ad hoc basis either by promotion or by direct recruitment against the substantive vacancy in the institution when the condition precedent for exercise of powers exit namely that the Management has notified the said vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher within one year from the date of such notification of the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. However, since the State Government was alive to the situation that the establishment of the Commission may taken long time and even after it is established, it may take long time to make available the required teacher in institution and as such issue three Removal of Difficulties Orders namely Removal of Difficulties Orders dated 11.9.81. Removal of Difficulties Order dated 30.1.82 and Removal of Difficulties Order dated 14.4.1982. In fact these Removal of Difficulties Orders were issued to remove the difficulties coming in the way of a Management in running the institution in absence of teachers. This power to appoint ad hoc teachers by direct recruitment thus, it available only when pre-conditions mentioned in Section 18 of the Act are satisfied, secondly, the vacancy is substantive vacancy and thirdly the vacancy could not be filled by promotion. Neither the Act nor the Removal of Difficulties Order defines vacancy. However the vacancy has been defined in Rule 2 (11) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules 1983 'vacancy' means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal, creation of new post or appointment/promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in substantive capacity. Thus, both under Section 18 of the Act and under the Removal of Difficulties Order the Management of an institution is empowered to make ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment, in the manner laid down in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order only when such vacancy cannot be filled by promotion and for a period till a candidate duly selected by the Commission joins the post. As noticed earlier both Section 18 of the Act and the provision of First Removal of Difficulties Order provide for ad hoc appointment of teacher in the institution, later further providing for method and manner of such appointments are part of one scheme. Scheme being provision for ad hoc appointment of teacher in the absence of duly selected teachers by the Commission. The provisions may be two but the power to appoint is one and the same and therefore, the provisions contained in Section 18 and Removal of Difficulties Orders are to harmonized. It is, therefore, not correct to say that appointment of a teacher on ad hoc basis is either under Section 18 of the Act or under the Removal of Difficulties Orders has to be followed. Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides that the management shall, as soon as may be, inform the District Inspector of Schools shall invite application from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two news papers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. Sub paragraph (3) of Paragraph 5 further provides that every such application shall be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Sub paragraph (4) of paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order provides that the District Inspector of Schools shall cause the best candidate selected on the basis of quality point specified in Appendix. The complication of quality point may be done by the Retired Government Gazetted Officer, in the personal supervision of the Inspector. Paragraph 6 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order further provides for appointment of such teacher under paragraph 5 who shall possess such essential qualification as laid down in Appendix A referred to in the Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made in the Intermediate Education Act.
42. In view of these provisions the ad hoc appointment of a teacher by direct recruitment can be resorted to only when the condition precedent for exercise of such powers as stated in paragraph 18 of the Act are present and only in the manner provided for in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order. This view of mine finds support in a number of decisions namely Rang Bahadur Singh and others Vs. District Inspector of Schools , Saharanpur, 1991 (2) UPLBEC page 1079 and Lalta Prasad Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. 1998 UPLBEC page 345. When a teacher is appointed on ad hoc basis is in accordance with the paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order there is further no requirement of approval or prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools for such appointment. However it goes without saying that if a management without following the procedure indicated above makes an ad hoc appointment the District Inspector of Schools possess general power under the Payment of salaries Act to stop payment of salary to such teacher."
First Stage :
The substantive vacancy in the post of teacher is firstly to be filled by promotion if not available, then by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Shortterm appointments are to be made in accordance with the provision of Second Removal of Difficulties Order only after advertising the vacancy in the manner laid down under sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order in addition to notifying the short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution. Ad-hoc appointment of Head of the institution is to be made by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit.
The procedure prescribed in Removal of Difficulties Order and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the effect of its infraction came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, JT 1996 (6) SC 579 and the Apex Court considering the procedure under First Order observed as under:-
"Any appointment made in transgression thereof is illegal appointment and is void and confers no right on the appointees."
Again in para 11 of the judgment the Court held as under:-
"Any appointment in violation thereof is void. As seen prior to the Amendment Act of 1982 the First 1981 Order envisages recruitment as per the procedure prescribed in para 5 thereof. It is an in-built procedure to avoid manipulation and nepotism in selection and appointment of the teachers by the Management to any posts in aided institution."
In the present case, undisputed position is that at no point of time any such procedure had been followed in the matter of selection and appointment of petitioners. The Managing Committee of the institution says that notice had been published on the notice board of the institution and thereafter it claims to have made appointment on the posts in question. Such type of appointments being made in breach of statutory provisions which covered the field, without making any advertisement in widely circulated newspapers and without following any procedure of selection, cannot be subscribed and the same are clearly in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Here statutory provisions have been totally bypassed and the inbuilt provision has been thrown away and manipulation has been sought to be made,which would be discussed subsequently. The appointment, having been made, by passing the statutory provisions, without there being any advertisement and through the agency which was not entitled to make selection, is consequently held to be void.
Petitioners have succeeded in getting salary on the strength of interim order, as the order dismissing writ petition as infructuous had not been communicated to the authorities, the order of regularization has been passed in favour of petitioners. Once appointment of petitioners is dehors the statutory provisions having been made without following any due procedure i. e. without advertising the vacancies in widely circulated news papers and and by the authority who was not at all competent, Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Timmaihah, 1972, AIR 1767, p. 26 took the view that if appointment itself is in violation and infraction of the Rules and the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. Benefit of regularization was extendable under Section 33-C of the U.P. Act No. V of 1982, when appointment was made, on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy, in accordance with Section 18. Here, appointment of petitioners was undisputedly, not at all in accordance with Section 18, and thus the very fist condition for extending benefit of regularization has been missing. Void appointment is neither here nor there, and said regularization order would not at all improve the case of petitioners, and the said order is equally of no consequence. As such this Court cannot issue directives for release of salary in favour of petitioners.
In the present case, one more important feature has also emerged, which shows that prima facie fraud and forgery has been committed with impunity. The District Inspector of Schools has taken a categorical stand that the documents which have been filed along with the writ petition are forged and fabricated and have not been received in his office. Petitioners had filed writ petition with specific case that on 12.01.1992 applications were invited, qua which they had applied and thereafter on 24.01.1992 resolution was passed in their favour, pursuant to which they are said to heave been appointed on the same date. As their luck would have been, there was a slip. Resolution dated 24.01.1992 is said to have been passed at 1.00 P.M. in the afternoon and most surprisingly, on the same day, petitioners are said to have been issued appointment letter and joined at 9.30. A.M. in the morning. Once this fraud and forgery surfaced, then totally different stand has been sought to be taken that due to inadvertence and oversight wrong date has been noted and actually the resolution is dated 10.01.1992. Original record has been produced by the management before this Court. Said records are kept in sealed cover. Record in question prima facie reveals that in original register, manipulations have been made and the minutes have been sought to be changed. At item No.100 of the dispatch register entry has been made of pension documents in the office of District Inspector of Schools by hand, in respect of appointment of petitioners. Manipulation is writ apparent, as at serial No.100 there was another letter and again serial number has been inserted. Similar is the situation at serial Nos. 102 and 104, wherein also same number has been written in the blank space available and insertion has been made qua information sent to the office of the District Inspector of Schools in respect of information sent by Management qua the appointment of petitioners. Original Minute Book is speaking for itself. In minutes dated 10.01.1992, President, Ras Behari Singh has been shown to have tendered his resignation. In the counter affidavit filed to Impleadment Application, petitioners have mentioned that resignation was tendered in the evening of the said day. Most surprising feature is that this particular resolution, at no point of time, has been transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, three meetings have been shown on 28.08.1992, 22.04.1993 and 10.06.1993 under the Presidentship of Achyabar Singh Vice president. Meeting dated 03.09.1995 shows absence of President and has been shown to have been held under the Presidentship of Manager. Thereafter Achaybar Singh has disappeared from the scene and Bhanu Pratap Singh has been shown as President and Nakud Singh as Vice President, in the meeting dated 11.07.1993, 23.01.1994 and thereaftrer, Ras Behari Singh has re-emerged as President in meeting dated 11.07.1994. Dispatch register does not demonstrate that at any point of time authorities were apprised of this change. Manipulation and nepotism is there,for the simple reason that petitioner No. 1 happened to be son of an employee based in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, and Chandra Pal Singh who also claimed appointment of the same date, was close relative of President, and he too had filed same copy of resolution dated 24.01.1992, before this Court, which is being disputed and being termed as a case of inadvertent error.
In the present case, District Inspector of Schools has come up with clear case that documents have not been received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and same are forged, and as the resolution dated 24.01.1992 has been forged, and in defence it is being said that it is inadvertent error it would be appropriate to direct that the District Inspector of Schools lodge First Information Report against the Manager of the institution and all other persons, including petitioners, whose complicity is prima facie found in such activities, and the criminal proceedings, if any, be brought to its logical end, as per law. Records are kept in sealed cover to be transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools for further follow-up action.
Writ petition is dismissed with above observations.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.