The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20518 of 2017 Goutam Rout …. Petitioner Ms. B. Pattnaik, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. S.N. Nayak, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.11.2024 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the notice issued by O.P. No.3 on 17.08.2017 under Annexure-7 and order dated 23.10.2017 so passed by O.P. No.5 under Annexure- 10. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that basing on the qualification possessed by the petitioner i.e. HSC, petitioner was engaged as a Non-Formal Facilitator in the year 1994 and subsequently as an Education Volunteer and ultimately as a Gana // 2 // Sikshyak vide order of appointment issued on 14.07.2008 under Annexure-4. 4.1. It is contended that in order to get the benefit of regularization as an Assistant Teacher, petitioner as desired produced the Upasastri certificate so obtained by him from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University. It is contended that while verifying the said document when it was found that the said certificate is a forged one, petitioner was issued with a show-cause by O.P. No.3 on the direction of O.P. No.5 vide notice dated 17.08.2017 under Annexure-7. 4.2. It is contended that though petitioner submitted a reply with the stand that petitioner at the time of initial appointment since has not produced any fake certificate, she is eligible to continue as a Gana Sikshyak, but on the face of such stand taken in the reply, petitioner was disengaged vide order dated 23.10.2017 so passed by O.P. No.5 under Annexure- 10. 4.3. It is contended that the certificate in question i.e. Upasastri pass certificate was produced by the petitioner for the purpose of being regularized as an Assistant Teacher. But while providing appointment to the petitioner as a Non-Formal Facilitator with further appointment as an Education Volunteer and Gana Sikshyak, petitioner relied on her HSC pass certificate, Page 2 of 9 // 3 // which is a genuine one. Therefore, at best petitioner’s claim for regularization as an Asst. Teacher could have been rejected by O.P. No.5. However, O.P. No.5 without proper appreciation disengaged the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 on the ground that petitioner has produced a fake certificate i.e. Upasastri pass certificate. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned notice as well as the order passed by O.P. No.5 under Annexure-7 and Annexure-10 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Gana Sikshyak vide order dated 14.07.2008 with the condition that Gana Sikshyak who are trained Matric i.e. 10th HSC/+2/CT/B.A., B.Com, B.Sc./B.Ed. will get consolidated remuneration @ Rs.2000/- per month and those who are untrained they will get consolidated remuneration @ Rs.1750/- per month. Though at the time of initial engagement, petitioner was having only HSC qualification but he subsequently submitted the Upasastri provisional pass certificate issued by Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University for the purpose of regularization as an Asst. Teacher. Petitioner passed the C.T. examination on Page 3 of 9 // 4 // 06.05.2010 and submitted the same before the authority. 5.1. It is contended that after such submissions of the Upasastri and CT certificate by the petitioner, he availed higher remuneration as provided in the order of engagement issued on 14.07.2008. It is further contended that while the matter stood thus, basing on the request made by the Govt. vide notification dated 22.12.2016, modalities were fixed for regularization of Gana Sikshyak and as per the said modalities, Gana Sikshyak who have completed 8 (eight) years of regular and continues engagement and have possessed educational and training qualification will be regularized as Level-V, Assistant Teacher (ex-cadre) equivalent to Level-V Teacher of Elementary Cadre. The educational and training qualification provided under Para-2 of the notification reads as follows:- “2. For regularization as Level-V Assistant Teacher (ex-cadre), a Gana Sikshyak must be possessing educational and training qualification as given below:- a) (i) Higher Secondary (+2 or its equivalent) and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (C.T) or Higher Secondary (+2 or its equivalent) and 2 (Special years of Diploma Education), or Graduate in Arts/Science and 2 years of Diploma (Special Education) and must have odia as MIL up to test Class-VII or pass equivalent to M.E. standard conducted or declared equivalent, by BSE(Odisha); or in Education in Education language in Odia (ii) Graduation in Arts/Science and 1 year bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) or Graduation in Arts/Science and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education) or Higher Page 4 of 9 // 5 // Secondary (+2 or its equivalent) and 4 years Bachelor in elementary education Higher Secondary (+2 or its equivalent) and 4 years B.A./B.Sc. Ed. Or B.E.Ed. B.S.Ed. and must have odia as MIL up to Class-X or pass in Odia language to Xth standard conducted or declared equivalent, by BSE (Odisha) test equivalent (b) Such Gana Sikshyak is required to pass OTET within 31.3.2019 if he has not passed OTET earlier. If she/he does not pass the OTET by such date, she/he will not be eligible to get any further increment after 31.3.2019”. 5.2. Pursuant to such decision taken by the Govt., petitioner in order to get the benefit of regularization, submitted the CT Pass certificate as well as Upasastri certificate so obtained from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Univerity which is equivalent to +2. It is contended that while the Upasastri certificate was sent for verification, the University vide letter dated 15.07.2017 under Annexure-D/3 series indicated that the said certificate is not a genuine one. 5.3. It is contended that pursuant to such letter issued by the University, petitioner was issued with the show- cause on 17.08.2017 under Annexure-7 and on due consideration of his reply so filed under Annexure-9, petitioner was disengaged vide order dated 23.10.2017 under Annexure-10. It is contended that in order to get the benefit of regularization since petitioner produced a forged certificate i.e. Upasastri Pass Certificate from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University, petitioner was issued with the show-cause and consequential Page 5 of 9 // 6 // disengagement order vide order dated 23.10.2017. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity is found with the action of O.P. No.5 in disengaging the petitioner. 5.4. It is also contended that since petitioner admittedly committed fraud to get the benefit of regularization, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as fraud vitiates everything. In support of the submission, learned AGA relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 486), Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 6 of the Judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu has held as follows:- loss. It “6. The facts of the ne present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking another. It is a deception in order to is a cheating gain by another’s to get an intended unfair advantage of advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the the in dispute. He knew property appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without that Page 6 of 9 // 7 // disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B -15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 5.5. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of IOCL in Para 29 has held as follows:- for producing “29. In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged mark sheet/certificate, that too, at the initial the stage of appointment be employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is Immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The fake/forged question the certificate. Therefore, in Disciplinary Authority was imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.” in our view, justified is producing trusted by the 6. Learned counsel for the University also contended that the Upasashtri pass certificate produced by the Petitioner when was forwarded to the University for verification, the University vide letter dated 15.07.2017 Page 7 of 9 // 8 // under Annexure-D/3 series intimated that no such certificate was ever issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended that petitioner has never passed Upasastri so conducted by the University. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was initially engaged as a Nor-Formal Facilitator in the year 1994 and subsequently as an Education Volunteer and ultimately as Gana Sikshyak vide order dated 14.07.2008. At the time his engagement as a Nor-Formal Facilitator as well as Education Volunteer and Gana Sikshyak, petitioner was having the requisite qualification i.e. HSC pass. But in order to get the benefit of regularization, petitioner produced the Upasastri Pass Certificate so issued by the University. But on verification of the same, the University vide letter dated 27.03.2017 under Annexure-C/3 series as well as letter dated 15.07.2017 under Annexure-D/3 series clearly indicated that the Upasastri Certificate so produced by the petitioner is a forged one. 7.1. Since no further document has been filed by the petitioner showing that the Upasastri certificate so produced by him is a genuine one, this Court taking into account the conduct of the petitioner in producing a fake certificate and placing reliance on the decisions cited supra does not find any illegality or irregularity Page 8 of 9 // 9 // with the impugned notice dated 17.08.2017 under Annexure-7 and the final order dated 23.10.2017 under Annexure-10 so passed by O.P. No.5. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
Decision
the same and dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2024 18:34:19 Page 9 of 9