High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on

02.12.2005. Thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher, however, later on, she was reverted back to Shiksha Mitra in pursuance of a judgment passed by this Court and she rejoined on said post.

2. In the year 2017 i.e. after 12 years of her initial appointment, on basis of a complaint, an inquiry was set up that in recruitment process, petitioner was placed at serial no. 3, however, by making manipulations in merit, persons at serial no. 1 and 2 were put at serial no. 2 and 3 respectively and petitioner was wrongly placed at serial no.1 and, accordingly, petitioner’s salary was stopped by an order dated

28.01.2020.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 7662 of 2021, which was allowed vide order dated 26.07.2021, whereby impugned order dated 28.01.2020, whereby salary of petitioner was stopped was set aside and matter was remitted back to pass fresh order.

4. In view of above, after affording an opportunity of re- hearing to petitioner as well as other persons, by impugned order dated 27.12.2021, appointment of petitioner was set aside ab-initio. Relevant part of impugned order is quoted below :- “समी्ቌा शि(cid:9)्ቌा अशि(cid:11)या䂇䦽 क䁧㞀 अऩ्त्ቇ(cid:7)त 腀訠ቧ७(cid:7) 2004-2005 म㿹㟜 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा स腀訠(cid:7) समिमत कन्या ्ቚा०मि腀訠० म䁧㞀हरां腀訠ा पर शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 चय䂇䦽 क䁇⹹ काय(cid:7)腀訠ाही क䁇⹹ मि䂇䦽቗ኋा(cid:7)रिरत तशि& तक 03 ्ቇयीꖉ鑫 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत क劜䄋 आ腀訠䁧㞀द䂇䦽 प匃尤 ्ቚा्቎ शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 चय䂇䦽 ्ቚस्ता腀訠 पद मि䂇䦽म्䂇䦽लि/लि0त हुएꖉ鑫 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत क䁧㞀 शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 चय䂇䦽 腀訠रीयता अंमिकत है- मि腀訠腀訠र룟 क䁧㞀 अ䂇䦽ुसार म䁧㞀रिर腎鯘 ए腀訠ं ्ቅमसं० 1 2 आ腀訠䁧㞀दक का 䂇䦽ाम अ䂇䦽ीता पत 䂇䦽ाम राज䁧㞀न््ቖ ्ቚसाद का हाईस्कू / ्ቚा्቎ांक हाईस्कू / इण्腎鯘र य(cid:9)劜䄋दा ्ቇौतम सुर䁧㞀(cid:9) कु मार हाईस्कू / इण्腎鯘र ्ቚत(cid:9)त 42 %

48.8% 42% 39% औसत ्ቚत(cid:9)त 45.09% 40% शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत स䁧㞀 कराया मिकया जा䂇䦽ा &ा त&ा उसका अ䂇䦽ुम劜䄋द䂇䦽 जिज/ा जा䂇䦽ा &ाꖉ鑫 यमिद 腀訠रीयता क䁧㞀 अभ्य&@ काय(cid:7) कर䂇䦽䁧㞀 क䁧㞀 इच्छु क 䂇䦽ह᭟᯲ ह劜䄋त䁧㞀 त劜䄋 उसका अभ्य&(cid:7)䂇䦽 मि䂇䦽रस्त करत䁧㞀 हुए अ्ቇ/䁧㞀 腀訠रीयता ्ቅम का ्ቚस्ता腀訠 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत ्ቛारा पारिरत कर जिज/ा समिमत क䁧㞀 अ䂇䦽ुम劜䄋द䂇䦽劜䄋परान्त शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 का चय䂇䦽 मिकया जा䂇䦽ा &ाꖉ鑫 मिकन्तु ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत ्ቛारा मिकया ्ቇया त&ा याची ्ቦीमती अ䂇䦽ीता क劜䄋 ्ቚमि्ቅया का पा/䂇䦽 䂇䦽ह᭟᯲ अ䂇䦽ुचत /ा(cid:11) द䁧㞀䂇䦽䁧㞀 ह䁧㞀तु म䁧㞀रिर腎鯘 म㿹㟜 कू 腎鯘रच䂇䦽ा/ छ䁧㞀डछाड कर ्ቚ&म 腀訠रीयता का ्ቚस्ता腀訠 पारिरत मिकया ्ቇयाꖉ鑫 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत का उ᯽ⶡ कृ त्य आपरा቗ኋक ्ቦ䁧㞀룟ी क䁧㞀 अन्त्ቇ(cid:7)त आता हैꖉ鑫 शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 का चय䂇䦽 सामुदायक स䁧㞀腀訠ा ह䁧㞀तु एक 腀訠ቧ७(cid:7) क䁇⹹ संमि腀訠दा पर मिकया जाता हैꖉ鑫 याची अ䂇䦽ीता द䁧㞀腀訠ी मिद䂇䦽ांक ्ቛारा स्腀訠ीकार मिकया ्ቇया है 11.11.2019 मि䂇䦽रू斀詩 रही हैꖉ鑫 0ण्ड शि(cid:9)्ቌा अ቗ኋकारी ्ቛारा स्प⒚ᯪ मिकया क䁧㞀 राकत क䁇⹹ जाँच आख्या शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 मिक याची ्ቦीमती अ䂇䦽ीता क劜䄋 अ䂇䦽ुचत /ा(cid:11) द䁧㞀䂇䦽䁧㞀 ह䁧㞀तु ्ቇया है चय䂇䦽 ्ቚस्ता腀訠 म㿹㟜 अंक劜䄋 म㿹㟜 ह䁧㞀राफ䁧㞀 री कू 腎鯘रच䂇䦽ा क䁇⹹ ्ቇयी हैꖉ鑫 ऐसी ቝኌस्&त म㿹㟜 याची क劜䄋 शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 पद पर ब䂇䦽䁧㞀 रह䂇䦽ा समीची䂇䦽 䂇䦽ह᭟᯲ हैꖉ鑫 मिक 腀訠ह मिद䂇䦽ांक 06.04.2019 स䁧㞀 मिद䂇䦽ांक 24.01.2018 तक ज䁧㞀/ म㿹㟜 मि䂇䦽룟(cid:7)य 2 मिक सम्बቝኌन्቗ኋत क䁧㞀 बया䂇䦽 ए腀訠ं प匃尤ा腀訠/ी क䁧㞀 परिर(cid:9)ी/䂇䦽 स䁧㞀 स्प⒚ᯪ ह劜䄋ता है याची ्ቦीमती अ䂇䦽ीता का शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 चय䂇䦽 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत क䁧㞀 चय䂇䦽 ्ቚस्ता腀訠 म㿹㟜 कू 腎鯘रच䂇䦽ा तथ्य्ቇ劜䄋प䂇䦽 करक䁧㞀 अ䂇䦽ुचत /ा(cid:11) द䁧㞀कर मिकया ्ቇया हैꖉ鑫 ऐसी ቝኌस्&त म㿹㟜 ्ቇाम शि(cid:9)्ቌा समिमत क䁧㞀 कन्या ्ቚा&मिमक मि腀訠्ቕा/य मिक ्ቦीमती अ䂇䦽ीता क䁇⹹ संमि腀訠दा समा्቎ म䁧㞀हरा腀訠ा क劜䄋 कर䂇䦽䁧㞀 क䁇⹹ काय(cid:7)腀訠ाही सुमि䂇䦽Vत कर㿹㟜ꖉ鑫 याची ्ቦीमती अ䂇䦽ीता का (cid:9)इ्ቌामिम匃尤 पद पर चय䂇䦽 अमि䂇䦽यमिमत रूप स䁧㞀 क䁇⹹ ्ቇयी हैꖉ鑫 अत䤜㟔 शि(cid:9)्ቌामिम匃尤 का अ腀訠(cid:9)䁧㞀ቧ७ मा䂇䦽द䁧㞀य 䂇䦽ह᭟᯲ द䁧㞀य है ए腀訠ं पु䂇䦽䤜㟔 काय(cid:7)(cid:11)ार ्ቇह룟 䂇䦽ह᭟᯲ कराया जा सकता मिद䂇䦽ांक हैꖉ鑫 14.09.2021 ्ቦीमती अ䂇䦽ीता का मि䂇䦽स्तारिरत मिकया जाता हैꖉ鑫” मि䂇䦽दU(cid:9) मिदया जाता है एतद्ቛारा क劜䄋 ्ቚत्या腀訠䁧㞀द䂇䦽

5. It was also mentioned in impugned order that a criminal case was lodged against petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and she was arrested and remained behind bars from 06.04.2019 to 11.11.2019, however, outcome of said investigation is not on record.

S/Sri P.K. Ganguly and Ram Sagar Yadav, learned advocates for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has never claimed that she was at serial no. 1 in merit list, whereas she was at 3rd number, however, since selected candidates at serial no. 1 and 2 have not opted to join post of Shiksha Mitra, therefore, petitioner being at serial no.3 was offered said post and she joined also.

7. Learned advocates further submitted that at a very belated stage, to unsuit the petitioner on erroneous ground would not only be against interest of justice but illegal also.

8. Per contra, Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. has supported impugned order and submitted that there is a specific finding that despite other two candidates (Yashoda Gautam and Sanghpriya Vidisha) having more merit, however, they were placed below petitioner as well as that petitioner was remained in jail also for committing forgery. 3

9. I have considered submissions of learned advocates for rival parties and perused records.

10. Contention of learned advocates for petitioner that petitioner was at serial no.3 in merit and since persons at serial no. 1 and 2 have not opted to join as Shiksha Mitra, therefore, petitioner was appointed is contrary to record as there is a specific finding in impugned order that other two candidates (Yashoda Gautam and Sanghpriya Vidisha) have merit points of 49.09% and 48.5% respectively whereas present petitioner has merit point of 45.35% only.

11. However, in the records, she was placed at serial no.1 which was not only erroneous but illegal also. There are specific allegations against petitioner that there was a forgery in register of Gram Shiksha Samiti by scratching the numbers.

12. Aforesaid allegations have not contradicted by learned advocates for petitioner on basis of any substantial argument on fact as well as on basis of documents.

13. In aforesaid circumstances, Court also takes note that an FIR was also lodged against petitioner and she remained in jail and outcome of investigation is not on record.

14. In view of above, since it was a case of forgery by making overwriting and scratching in original records, therefore, an appointment procured on basis of forgery cannot survive, even though it was revealed after 12 years. 4

15. It is well settled that “fraud vitiates all solemn acts”. Therefore, impugned order is justified since it is passed on basis of material and there is no reason or material before this Court to interfere with the findings returned in impugned order.

16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground that petitioner has made out a case for interference in impugned order, hence, writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- May 02, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5

S/Sri P.K. Ganguly and Ram Sagar Yadav, learned advocates for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has never claimed that she was at serial no. 1 in merit list, whereas she was at 3rd number, however, since selected candidates at serial no. 1 and 2 have not opted to join post of Shiksha Mitra, therefore, petitioner being at serial no.3 was offered said post and she joined also.

7. Learned advocates further submitted that at a very belated stage, to unsuit the petitioner on erroneous ground would not only be against interest of justice but illegal also.

8. Per contra, Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. has supported impugned order and submitted that there is a specific finding that despite other two candidates (Yashoda Gautam and Sanghpriya Vidisha) having more merit, however, they were placed below petitioner as well as that petitioner was remained in jail also for committing forgery. 3

9. I have considered submissions of learned advocates for rival parties and perused records.

10. Contention of learned advocates for petitioner that petitioner was at serial no.3 in merit and since persons at serial no. 1 and 2 have not opted to join as Shiksha Mitra, therefore, petitioner was appointed is contrary to record as there is a specific finding in impugned order that other two candidates (Yashoda Gautam and Sanghpriya Vidisha) have merit points of 49.09% and 48.5% respectively whereas present petitioner has merit point of 45.35% only.

11. However, in the records, she was placed at serial no.1 which was not only erroneous but illegal also. There are specific allegations against petitioner that there was a forgery in register of Gram Shiksha Samiti by scratching the numbers.

12. Aforesaid allegations have not contradicted by learned advocates for petitioner on basis of any substantial argument on fact as well as on basis of documents.

13. In aforesaid circumstances, Court also takes note that an FIR was also lodged against petitioner and she remained in jail and outcome of investigation is not on record.

14. In view of above, since it was a case of forgery by making overwriting and scratching in original records, therefore, an appointment procured on basis of forgery cannot survive, even though it was revealed after 12 years. 4

15. It is well settled that “fraud vitiates all solemn acts”. Therefore, impugned order is justified since it is passed on basis of material and there is no reason or material before this Court to interfere with the findings returned in impugned order.

16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground that petitioner has made out a case for interference in impugned order, hence, writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- May 02, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5