Safaquat Ali vs Chief Engineer Hydle, Uttar Pradesh State Electricity

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed on 5.12.1970 on a short term vacancy as a Routine Grade Clerk in the services of the U.P. State Electricity Board. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were confirmed vide order dated 4.10.1977 on the post of Routine Grade Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1976. While the petitioner was working as such, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated

23.11.1992 on two charges, namely, (a) that the petitioner had procured appointment in the U.P. State Electricity Board by wrongly showing that he had done his High School and Intermediate from the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, whereas the 2 service record shows that he had never passed High School and in fact had failed in High School Examination and therefore, he had procured appointment in the Department by fraud and misrepresentation. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had given a wrong declaration about his immoveable and moveable properties to the Department. Disciplinary proceedings proceeded against the petitioner and both the charges were proved against the petitioner. This Court has perused Inquiry Report. Although Charge No. 2 has not been established against the petitioner but as far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, the same stands proved against the petitioner. From the Inquiry Report as well as the documents filed in the Counter Affidavit as well as the record shown by the leaned counsel for the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, it is clear that the petitioner had given a wrong declaration that he had done his High School and Intermediate while being enrolled as a student of K.L.D.A.V. Inter College, Roorkee, Haridwar. This declaration is patently false as there is a letter of the Principal of the said College showing that the petitioner though was enrolled in High School in the said school, but he failed to qualify the High School Examination. On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner Sri Alok Mehra states that it has not been the case of the petitioner that he had done his High School from the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, but he has done his (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) from (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad(cid:148), which are equivalent to High School and Intermediate respectively, and therefore, in the eyes of law, the petitioner has done his intermediate. Although the service record of 3 petitioner, which are before this Court do not show that the petitioner had done his (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) from (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148), Allahabad but the records show his qualifications of High School and Intermediate of U.P. Board, while enrolled as a student in K.L.D.A.V. Inter College, Roorkee, Haridwar, yet, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner has claimed his High School and Intermediate qualification on the basis of (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148), which he has done from (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148), no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that the equivalence (equivalence with High School & Intermediate) claimed by a candidate on the basis of his (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148), Allahabad patently misplaced. (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate nor can this equivalence be granted to them by the Court. In Shailendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2007 (1) U.D., 155, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the certificates granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan cannot be equated to other regular certificates such as Bachelor of Education. In the said case, the equivalence as claimed was between (cid:147)Shiksha Visharad(cid:148), which was granted by (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148) and B.Ed. degree granted by a University and other Educational Institutions. Another Division Bench of this Court (Director, Krishi Utpadam Mandi Samti, Uttarakhand at Dehradun and another Vs. Lal Chand (Special Appeal No. 247 of 2008, decided on

9.3.2010), in a matter relating to (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) certificates granted by (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya 4 Sammellan(cid:148), Allahabad, has held that such an equivalence cannot be granted. Thereafter, in the case of Nathi Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (Writ Petition (S/S) No. 276 of 2009, decided on 10.8.2009) following the decision of Shailendra Singh(cid:146)s case (supra), (cid:147)Shiksha Visharad(cid:148) granted by (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148) was not considered to be equivalent to B.Ed. The principle, however, in all these cases is the same. Moreover, the concerned Authority who is the employer has clearly prescribed the qualification, which intermediate the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board or any other such equivalence granted by a validly prescribed Board or Authority. (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148) was not such an Authority. Merely because the petitioner has done his (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) (cid:147)Hindi Sahitya Sammellan(cid:148), he cannot be deemed to be High School and Intermediate qualified. This is not all, the petitioner had procured the appointment by making misrepresentation regarding his qualifications, as the records clearly reveal that the petitioner at the time of appointment had shown his qualification to be High School and Intermediate. Therefore, conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer and the decisions taken subsequently on the basis of the inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority on 8.1.1999 holding that the petitioner had procured appointment by misrepresentation and fraud are correct and this Court does not find any fault with this order. Even the subsequent order dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority is an order, which clearly holds that since (cid:147)Prathama(cid:148) and (cid:147)Madhyama(cid:148) were not the qualifications equivalent to High School and Intermediate, 5 petitioner was not qualified and therefore, he had procured appointment misrepresentation. Fraud vitiates everything. Apart from the fact that the petitioner was not qualified to be given appointment as a Routine Grade Clerk as admittedly the minimum qualification for appointment as Routine Grade Clerk is Intermediate, what is more alarming in the present case is that the petitioner had procured the appointment by fraud and misrepresentation. This Court, therefore, finds no reason so as to interfere in the removal of the petitioner. The instant Writ Petition is absolutely without merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. Rathour (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 3.08.2010