High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to subsequent letter dated 14th February, 2014 by the then District Inspector of Schools pertaining to relieving order in pursuance of some transfer as well as subsequent order dated 8th March, 2014 whereby again orders have been passed pertaining to salary payment of petitioner. He has also adverted to the service book which is duly counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools.

5. Learned counsel submits that impugned order has been passed only on the ground that during course of examination of petitioner's grievance, the authority concerned came up with a letter dated 27th October, 2008 written by the then District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Pushpa Rani Srivastava, indicating the fact that her signatures have been forged on the appointment letter dated 9th December, 2006 pertaining to appointment of petitioner's father.

6. It is submitted that in counter affidavit, opposite parties have not denied any of the documents which have been annexed to the petition including directions issued by the Joint Director of Education pertaining to salary payment of petitioner's late father and claim has been rejected only on the basis of assumption that the appointment letter of petitioner's father was forged with such assumption being raised only on the letter dated 27th October, 2008. It is submitted that no inquiry whatsoever has been held to establish genuineness of the claim raised by the then District Inspector of Schools.

7. It is further submitted that since petitioner's father passed away on 20th October, 2017, it is not open for the opposite parties now to reject petitioner's representation on the aforesaid ground.

8. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of letter issued by the then District Inspector of Schools in which she has specifically denied her signatures on the appointment letter of petitioner's late father. It is submitted that since the said official was subsequently transferred, no further action could take place and the subsequent incumbents on the post of District Inspector of Schools continued to pass orders on the assumption of genuineness of the appointment letter of petitioner's father. It is therefore submitted that the allegations levelled pertaining to appointment of late Ramendra Prasad being serious in nature, was examined by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order and claim of petitioner has been rightly denied.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed on the basis of earlier letter dated 27th October,2008 written by the then District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Pushpa Rani Srvastava, disclaiming her signatures on the appointment letter dated 9th December, 2006. It is also evident from the impugned order that subsequent to the said letter dated 27th October, 2008, no inquiry proceedings whatsoever took place in order to establish genuineness of allegations levelled with regard to appointment letter of petitioner's late father. On the contrary petitioner has brought on record various letters and orders passed by various authorities including Joint Director of Education pertaining to grant of salary to petitioner's father. By deemed fiction of law, it would be assumed that higher authorities would be aware of genuineness of appointment of their employees prior to passing of any orders for payment of salary. It is also evident that petitioner's father along with another person had earlier filed writ petition No. 4702 (S/S) of 2010 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 15th June, 2010. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that no such ground has been put forth before this Court at that time casting aspersion on the appointment letter of late Ramendra Prasad.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid judgment had attained finality since it was not challenged by any party. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if the opposite parties had received the letter dated 27th October, 2008 submitted by the then District Inspector of Schools, the said fact could have been brought to the notice of this Court whereby such an order may not have been passed. It also does not appear from record that any appeal on recall of the order was over sought.

11. It has been submitted by learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit that subsequently directions have been issued for lodging of F.I.R. against one Harendra Kumar Singh the then Stenographer on the allegation of having complicity in issuance of the forged doucment. It is submitted that the aforesaid criminal proceedings are still pending.

12. The aspect of F.I.R. having been lodged against the then Stenographer would not be material for consideration of claim of petitioner in view of the fact that criminal proceedings are still pending and even otherwise, no departmental proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the letter of then District Inspector of Schools dated 28th October, 2008.

13. A perusal of counter affidavit also indicates that various orders passed by various authorities including the Joint Director of Education appended to the writ petition have not been denied by the opposite parties. The sole basis for denial of petitioner's candidature is based on the letter dated 27th October, 2008, the genuineness of claims raised therein having not been examined in any inquiry proceedings. As such it is evident that impugned order has been passed only on the basis of assumptions and surmises without any corroborating evidence and ignoring material evidence to the contrary.

14. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the reasoning indicated in the impugned order dated 21st January, 2023 being unsustainable, the said order is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No.3 i.e. Joint Director of Education, Ayodhya to re-consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment treating his father to have been substantively and regularly appointed. Consideration with regard to same and final decision thereof shall be taken by the authority concerned within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority in case petitioner is otherwise eligible.

15. Consequently the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to subsequent letter dated 14th February, 2014 by the then District Inspector of Schools pertaining to relieving order in pursuance of some transfer as well as subsequent order dated 8th March, 2014 whereby again orders have been passed pertaining to salary payment of petitioner. He has also adverted to the service book which is duly counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools.

5. Learned counsel submits that impugned order has been passed only on the ground that during course of examination of petitioner's grievance, the authority concerned came up with a letter dated 27th October, 2008 written by the then District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Pushpa Rani Srivastava, indicating the fact that her signatures have been forged on the appointment letter dated 9th December, 2006 pertaining to appointment of petitioner's father.

6. It is submitted that in counter affidavit, opposite parties have not denied any of the documents which have been annexed to the petition including directions issued by the Joint Director of Education pertaining to salary payment of petitioner's late father and claim has been rejected only on the basis of assumption that the appointment letter of petitioner's father was forged with such assumption being raised only on the letter dated 27th October, 2008. It is submitted that no inquiry whatsoever has been held to establish genuineness of the claim raised by the then District Inspector of Schools.

7. It is further submitted that since petitioner's father passed away on 20th October, 2017, it is not open for the opposite parties now to reject petitioner's representation on the aforesaid ground.

8. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of letter issued by the then District Inspector of Schools in which she has specifically denied her signatures on the appointment letter of petitioner's late father. It is submitted that since the said official was subsequently transferred, no further action could take place and the subsequent incumbents on the post of District Inspector of Schools continued to pass orders on the assumption of genuineness of the appointment letter of petitioner's father. It is therefore submitted that the allegations levelled pertaining to appointment of late Ramendra Prasad being serious in nature, was examined by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order and claim of petitioner has been rightly denied.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed on the basis of earlier letter dated 27th October,2008 written by the then District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Pushpa Rani Srvastava, disclaiming her signatures on the appointment letter dated 9th December, 2006. It is also evident from the impugned order that subsequent to the said letter dated 27th October, 2008, no inquiry proceedings whatsoever took place in order to establish genuineness of allegations levelled with regard to appointment letter of petitioner's late father. On the contrary petitioner has brought on record various letters and orders passed by various authorities including Joint Director of Education pertaining to grant of salary to petitioner's father. By deemed fiction of law, it would be assumed that higher authorities would be aware of genuineness of appointment of their employees prior to passing of any orders for payment of salary. It is also evident that petitioner's father along with another person had earlier filed writ petition No. 4702 (S/S) of 2010 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 15th June, 2010. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that no such ground has been put forth before this Court at that time casting aspersion on the appointment letter of late Ramendra Prasad.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid judgment had attained finality since it was not challenged by any party. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if the opposite parties had received the letter dated 27th October, 2008 submitted by the then District Inspector of Schools, the said fact could have been brought to the notice of this Court whereby such an order may not have been passed. It also does not appear from record that any appeal on recall of the order was over sought.

11. It has been submitted by learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit that subsequently directions have been issued for lodging of F.I.R. against one Harendra Kumar Singh the then Stenographer on the allegation of having complicity in issuance of the forged doucment. It is submitted that the aforesaid criminal proceedings are still pending.

12. The aspect of F.I.R. having been lodged against the then Stenographer would not be material for consideration of claim of petitioner in view of the fact that criminal proceedings are still pending and even otherwise, no departmental proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the letter of then District Inspector of Schools dated 28th October, 2008.

13. A perusal of counter affidavit also indicates that various orders passed by various authorities including the Joint Director of Education appended to the writ petition have not been denied by the opposite parties. The sole basis for denial of petitioner's candidature is based on the letter dated 27th October, 2008, the genuineness of claims raised therein having not been examined in any inquiry proceedings. As such it is evident that impugned order has been passed only on the basis of assumptions and surmises without any corroborating evidence and ignoring material evidence to the contrary.

14. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the reasoning indicated in the impugned order dated 21st January, 2023 being unsustainable, the said order is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No.3 i.e. Joint Director of Education, Ayodhya to re-consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment treating his father to have been substantively and regularly appointed. Consideration with regard to same and final decision thereof shall be taken by the authority concerned within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority in case petitioner is otherwise eligible.

15. Consequently the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench