High Court · 2025

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has passed the following interim orders on 18.02.2003: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos 1. 2 and 3. He prays for and is granted a month's time to file counter affidavit. The petitioners shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the week commencing 7.4.2003 Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 and 5 fixing a date in the week commencing 7.4.2003. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on Class IV post in the year 1982 in the institution of respondent no. 4 and they have been working regularly since then. By means of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 the services of the petitioners have been terminated solely on the ground that the educational qualification certificates of Class seven and Class five filed by the petitioners at the time of the appointment were forged. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no proper opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order. The averments with regard to the same have been made in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there were no requirement of any educational qualifications for appointment on the post of Class IV post and the petitioners has further submitted that the affidavits to the effect that the certificates filed by them were genuine have not been considered by the authorities. In view of the above, the operation of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as consequential order dated 4.2.2003 passed by respondent no. 4 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing and the petitioners shall be permitted to continue to work on the post on which the petitioners have been working and shall be paid salary."

4. By virtue of the above order, petitioners have continued in fourth respondent's institution. Subsequently, the first petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st November, 2024 and the second petitioner was retired on 12th November, 2023. Both the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees in the fourth respondent's institution vide order dated

15.11.1982 and since then, they are continued in the said institution. Accordingly, the competent authority has also released salaries to the petitioner.

5. While things do thus in the year 2002, the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar has issued notices to the petitioners calling upon them to submit original certificates pertaining to their educational qualifications and the said notice has been issued based on the complaint made by one Harvir Singh, who has nothing to do with the appointment of the petitioners. In reply to the said notice, petitioners have submitted their affidavits narrating that the petitioners had studied only till fourth class and to support their contention, they have submitted transfer certificates from Primary Pathshala Jakheta, District Bulandshahar and petitioner no. 2 pointed out that he did not possess any educational qualification and he had never studied in any institution and further despite the affidavits filed by the petitioners, the respondents surprisingly have issued orders on 31.01.2003 dispensing the services of the petitioners on the ground that they have obtained appointment by submitting forged documents. Questioning the same, present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with regard to minimum qualifications for Class-IV was inserted only in the year 1992 and before that there was no minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment on Class-IV post. Hence, there is no necessity to submit any forged or fake documents to get appointment on Class-IV post. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted their affidavits but without considering the said affidavits, the respondents have conducted inquiry behind the back of the petitioners and based on the alleged inquiry report, the respondents have passed the present impugned orders, which is contrary to rules and also the principles of natural justice.

7. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the assertions made at paragraph 20 of the writ petition, wherein he has specifically stated that the respondents have not supplied any inquiry report of Associate District Inspector of Schools and have not provided any opportunity to substantiate their case before the authorities. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when there is no prescription of minimum qualification in the rules, no necessity to submit any forged or fake documents to obtain Class-IV employment. Hence, at any rate, the impugned orders are contrary to principles of natural justice and also the procedures contemplated under the rules.

8. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that based on the assertions made in the counter affidavit, the said Associate District Inspector of Schools has conducted the inquiry and as per the inquiry report, the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar as well as report of Finance & Accounts Officer (Secondary Education), Bulandshahar, the then District Inspector of Schools have passed the impugned order on 31.01.2003 and based on the said orders, the Principal of the institution had issued termination orders on

4.2.2003 terminating the services of the petitioners. Further, it is contended that the impugned orders have been passed after providing opportunity to the petitioners and before passing the order, show cause was also issued.

9. In reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has substantiated that though there is specific assertion made in paragraph 20 with regard to non-supply of inquiry report and also not providing any opportunity before passing the impugned order, there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the respondents have not produced any proof that the inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.

10. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners were continued and salaries were also paid. Subsequently, they were retired and one of the petitioners was also died. In fact, in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have contended that retiral benefits were not released to the petitioners only because of pendency of the writ petition.

11. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties as well as interim directions issued by this Court on

18.02.2003, as the petitioners have continued till the age of their retirement on the said post and also as the learned counsel for the petitioners is able to establish his case that the respondents have not followed the process before passing the impugned order either they have not provided any inquiry report or any opportunity before passing the impugned order. On this ground alone, the impugned order has to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the 31.01.2003 passed by Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar is set aside and by taking the facts that the petitioners have continued in service by virtue of the interim order, the respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has passed the following interim orders on 18.02.2003: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos 1. 2 and 3. He prays for and is granted a month's time to file counter affidavit. The petitioners shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the week commencing 7.4.2003 Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 and 5 fixing a date in the week commencing 7.4.2003. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on Class IV post in the year 1982 in the institution of respondent no. 4 and they have been working regularly since then. By means of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 the services of the petitioners have been terminated solely on the ground that the educational qualification certificates of Class seven and Class five filed by the petitioners at the time of the appointment were forged. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no proper opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order. The averments with regard to the same have been made in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there were no requirement of any educational qualifications for appointment on the post of Class IV post and the petitioners has further submitted that the affidavits to the effect that the certificates filed by them were genuine have not been considered by the authorities. In view of the above, the operation of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as consequential order dated 4.2.2003 passed by respondent no. 4 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing and the petitioners shall be permitted to continue to work on the post on which the petitioners have been working and shall be paid salary."

4. By virtue of the above order, petitioners have continued in fourth respondent's institution. Subsequently, the first petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st November, 2024 and the second petitioner was retired on 12th November, 2023. Both the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees in the fourth respondent's institution vide order dated

15.11.1982 and since then, they are continued in the said institution. Accordingly, the competent authority has also released salaries to the petitioner.

5. While things do thus in the year 2002, the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar has issued notices to the petitioners calling upon them to submit original certificates pertaining to their educational qualifications and the said notice has been issued based on the complaint made by one Harvir Singh, who has nothing to do with the appointment of the petitioners. In reply to the said notice, petitioners have submitted their affidavits narrating that the petitioners had studied only till fourth class and to support their contention, they have submitted transfer certificates from Primary Pathshala Jakheta, District Bulandshahar and petitioner no. 2 pointed out that he did not possess any educational qualification and he had never studied in any institution and further despite the affidavits filed by the petitioners, the respondents surprisingly have issued orders on 31.01.2003 dispensing the services of the petitioners on the ground that they have obtained appointment by submitting forged documents. Questioning the same, present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with regard to minimum qualifications for Class-IV was inserted only in the year 1992 and before that there was no minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment on Class-IV post. Hence, there is no necessity to submit any forged or fake documents to get appointment on Class-IV post. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted their affidavits but without considering the said affidavits, the respondents have conducted inquiry behind the back of the petitioners and based on the alleged inquiry report, the respondents have passed the present impugned orders, which is contrary to rules and also the principles of natural justice.

7. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the assertions made at paragraph 20 of the writ petition, wherein he has specifically stated that the respondents have not supplied any inquiry report of Associate District Inspector of Schools and have not provided any opportunity to substantiate their case before the authorities. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when there is no prescription of minimum qualification in the rules, no necessity to submit any forged or fake documents to obtain Class-IV employment. Hence, at any rate, the impugned orders are contrary to principles of natural justice and also the procedures contemplated under the rules.

8. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that based on the assertions made in the counter affidavit, the said Associate District Inspector of Schools has conducted the inquiry and as per the inquiry report, the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar as well as report of Finance & Accounts Officer (Secondary Education), Bulandshahar, the then District Inspector of Schools have passed the impugned order on 31.01.2003 and based on the said orders, the Principal of the institution had issued termination orders on

4.2.2003 terminating the services of the petitioners. Further, it is contended that the impugned orders have been passed after providing opportunity to the petitioners and before passing the order, show cause was also issued.

9. In reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has substantiated that though there is specific assertion made in paragraph 20 with regard to non-supply of inquiry report and also not providing any opportunity before passing the impugned order, there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the respondents have not produced any proof that the inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.

10. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners were continued and salaries were also paid. Subsequently, they were retired and one of the petitioners was also died. In fact, in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have contended that retiral benefits were not released to the petitioners only because of pendency of the writ petition.

11. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties as well as interim directions issued by this Court on

18.02.2003, as the petitioners have continued till the age of their retirement on the said post and also as the learned counsel for the petitioners is able to establish his case that the respondents have not followed the process before passing the impugned order either they have not provided any inquiry report or any opportunity before passing the impugned order. On this ground alone, the impugned order has to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the 31.01.2003 passed by Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar is set aside and by taking the facts that the petitioners have continued in service by virtue of the interim order, the respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad