High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18153 of 2024

2. Petitioner :- Rashmikala Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents in all connected matters.

2. This is bunch of three writ petitions. All the writ petitioners have participated in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Principal in the Government Inter Colleges. All petitioners were successful in the written examination and have participated in the Interview also. Thereafter respective appointment letters were issued.

3. There was an eligibility condition i.e. there must be a minimum three years experience of teaching in any recognized Inter College and in this regard all writ petitioners have submitted their respective experience certificate.

4. It appears that during verification of respective experience certificate, it was revealed that those were forged and the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh has disputed his signature on respective certificates for the purpose of verification, that it was a forged signature. Per contra, it is a case of each petitioner that their respective certificate was genuine and issued on basis of their work in concerned Intermediate Colleges and Principal of said colleges has repeatedly submitted reports, during the inquiry, that their certificates were genuine and any dispute to it was unsustainable. The signature of Joint Director was genuine.

5. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that despite repeated communication from the Principal of earlier institute where the respective petitioners have worked and they have verified experience certificates to be genuine, still, said repeated reports were not accepted as genuine and de hors of rules, an expert inquiry was conducted by a Three Member Committee .

6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Abhishek Rajbhar (Petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024), report was never confronted and not only his experience certificate was held to be a forged documents but he was barred to participate in the examination to be conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for three years. 2 of 5 Similar order was passed for other writ petitioners without following Principle of Natural Justice.

7. A detailed counter affidavit was filed in the case of Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024) and learned Standing Counsel for State has referred the report of Three Member Committee, so far as petitioner Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024) concerned that there was a serious irregularity in his appointment in earlier college and he has shown his presence even on number of Gazetted Holidays that he has even taught on those days also in said Inter college which on face of it, an indication that experience certificate was forged.

8. No counter affidavit was filed in other two writ petitions, therefore, the Court is not aware whether there was any Three Member Committee report in regard to said writ petitioners or not.

9. I have carefully perused the records annexed along with writ petitions as well as counter affidavit.

10. So far as the case of Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ- A No.19624 of 2024) is concerned, there are documents that Principal of earlier college has repeatedly submitted reports that his experience certificate was genuine, however, the State respondent has sought certain other information also and has scrutinize, the nature of appointment of the said petitioner, which does not warrant as it was beyond the scope of any inquiry. Though report suggests that said petitioner has attended classes on holiday also, which creates a reasonable doubt. 3 of 5

11. The Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh has made a categorical statement that his signature were forged on certificates as he was supposed to put for the purpose of their verification and said Officer remained consistent on his declaration, therefore, the Court cannot presume that such a Senior Officer will state an incorrect fact, so far as his signature is concerned. The Court further takes note that the report of Three Member Committee, placed on record by way of counter affidavit filed in case of Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024), however, it was never confronted with said petitioner, though it was not mandatory but since by impugned order there are serious consequence against said petitioner, therefore, it ought to have been confronted or any material which goes against them, as the case may be. An opportunity ought to have been granted to petitioner to submit his reply.

12. So far as other writ petitioners are concerned (Ram Prakash in Writ- A No.18150 of 2024 and Rashmikala in Writ- A No. 18153 of 2024), no counter affidavit has been filed and in impugned order, reporst dated 27.02.2024 and 24.01.2024 are referred, however, it appears the same has also not been confronted with said petitioners and they have suffered with serious consequence by impugned order that not only their experience certificates were held to be forged document but they have also debarred for three years for appearing in any competitive examination to be conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. 4 of 5

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, though the Court is of view that there was a substantial compliance of Principles of Natural Justice since petitioners were put on notice and they have submitted their respective reply as well as information received from Principal of colleges also and they have called to appear in person still in the interest of justice, the Court is of considered opinion that since the final reports which are basis of impugned order were not confronted to respective petitioners, therefore, an opportunity could be granted to them to submit their reply to adverse report or any other material.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned orders are directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months and petitioners will be confronted with material available against them including any report within a period of three weeks.

15. The petitioners thereafter will have an opportunity to file their written reply within two weeks and subsequently a fresh order be passed by concerned State respondent within four weeks. The direction to put impugned order in abeyance will subject to outcome of aforesaid proceedings and respective decisions.

16. Accordingly, all writ petitions are disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 18.03.2025 P. Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] 5 of 5 PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents in all connected matters.

2. This is bunch of three writ petitions. All the writ petitioners have participated in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Principal in the Government Inter Colleges. All petitioners were successful in the written examination and have participated in the Interview also. Thereafter respective appointment letters were issued.

3. There was an eligibility condition i.e. there must be a minimum three years experience of teaching in any recognized Inter College and in this regard all writ petitioners have submitted their respective experience certificate.

4. It appears that during verification of respective experience certificate, it was revealed that those were forged and the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh has disputed his signature on respective certificates for the purpose of verification, that it was a forged signature. Per contra, it is a case of each petitioner that their respective certificate was genuine and issued on basis of their work in concerned Intermediate Colleges and Principal of said colleges has repeatedly submitted reports, during the inquiry, that their certificates were genuine and any dispute to it was unsustainable. The signature of Joint Director was genuine.

5. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that despite repeated communication from the Principal of earlier institute where the respective petitioners have worked and they have verified experience certificates to be genuine, still, said repeated reports were not accepted as genuine and de hors of rules, an expert inquiry was conducted by a Three Member Committee .

6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Abhishek Rajbhar (Petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024), report was never confronted and not only his experience certificate was held to be a forged documents but he was barred to participate in the examination to be conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for three years. 2 of 5 Similar order was passed for other writ petitioners without following Principle of Natural Justice.

7. A detailed counter affidavit was filed in the case of Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024) and learned Standing Counsel for State has referred the report of Three Member Committee, so far as petitioner Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024) concerned that there was a serious irregularity in his appointment in earlier college and he has shown his presence even on number of Gazetted Holidays that he has even taught on those days also in said Inter college which on face of it, an indication that experience certificate was forged.

8. No counter affidavit was filed in other two writ petitions, therefore, the Court is not aware whether there was any Three Member Committee report in regard to said writ petitioners or not.

9. I have carefully perused the records annexed along with writ petitions as well as counter affidavit.

10. So far as the case of Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ- A No.19624 of 2024) is concerned, there are documents that Principal of earlier college has repeatedly submitted reports that his experience certificate was genuine, however, the State respondent has sought certain other information also and has scrutinize, the nature of appointment of the said petitioner, which does not warrant as it was beyond the scope of any inquiry. Though report suggests that said petitioner has attended classes on holiday also, which creates a reasonable doubt. 3 of 5

11. The Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh has made a categorical statement that his signature were forged on certificates as he was supposed to put for the purpose of their verification and said Officer remained consistent on his declaration, therefore, the Court cannot presume that such a Senior Officer will state an incorrect fact, so far as his signature is concerned. The Court further takes note that the report of Three Member Committee, placed on record by way of counter affidavit filed in case of Abhishek Rajbhar (petitioner in Writ-A No.19624 of 2024), however, it was never confronted with said petitioner, though it was not mandatory but since by impugned order there are serious consequence against said petitioner, therefore, it ought to have been confronted or any material which goes against them, as the case may be. An opportunity ought to have been granted to petitioner to submit his reply.

12. So far as other writ petitioners are concerned (Ram Prakash in Writ- A No.18150 of 2024 and Rashmikala in Writ- A No. 18153 of 2024), no counter affidavit has been filed and in impugned order, reporst dated 27.02.2024 and 24.01.2024 are referred, however, it appears the same has also not been confronted with said petitioners and they have suffered with serious consequence by impugned order that not only their experience certificates were held to be forged document but they have also debarred for three years for appearing in any competitive examination to be conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. 4 of 5

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, though the Court is of view that there was a substantial compliance of Principles of Natural Justice since petitioners were put on notice and they have submitted their respective reply as well as information received from Principal of colleges also and they have called to appear in person still in the interest of justice, the Court is of considered opinion that since the final reports which are basis of impugned order were not confronted to respective petitioners, therefore, an opportunity could be granted to them to submit their reply to adverse report or any other material.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned orders are directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months and petitioners will be confronted with material available against them including any report within a period of three weeks.

15. The petitioners thereafter will have an opportunity to file their written reply within two weeks and subsequently a fresh order be passed by concerned State respondent within four weeks. The direction to put impugned order in abeyance will subject to outcome of aforesaid proceedings and respective decisions.

16. Accordingly, all writ petitions are disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 18.03.2025 P. Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] 5 of 5 PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad