Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Civil Secrtt. Lko and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56976-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 202 of 2022

Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey and Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for Respondent :- Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 4 and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Vide order dated 06.08.2024 subject to the deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the appellant, the officer concerned was permitted to appear through video conferencing, however, learned counsel for the appellant waives the cost.

¶7

Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court, though, the officer was required to present through video conferencing, however, looking to the volume of the record, the officer is present in person along with the record.

¶8

This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in Service Single No.27780 of 2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶9

The writ petition was filed seeking to question the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi whereby the petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school run by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had submitted the forged certificate of having cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

¶10

The appellant was appointed vide order dated 21.09.2015 on the post of Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. In the letter of appointment, it was specifically mentioned that on verification if any document or information given by the candidate was found to be incorrect or forged, the appointment order would be cancelled forthwith without affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶11

The appellant had submitted his TET Certificate of the year 2013 with Roll No. 0720105064 and claimed having received 85 marks. The certificate along with the roll number was got verified from the website of the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad wherein it was found that the appellant had obtained 69 marks only. The appellant was issued a notice on 03.04.2021 in respect of the discrepancy in the TET certificate submitted by him and online information available in this regard, however, no response was given to the show cause notice based on which the order dated 02.07.2021 was passed.

¶12

The learned Single Judge on coming to the conclusion that a forged TET certificate had been produced by the appellant and therefore the appointment has been cancelled, found no case for interference and dismissed the writ petition.

¶13

Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal was filed and when the matter came up before this Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court ordered for impleadment of Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj as respondent no. 4 and required production of the documents for verification of the marks obtained by the appellant in the TET Examination.

¶14

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the instructions were produced before the Court wherein it was indicated that the appellant had obtained 69 marks only. Thereafter other directions were issued for production of original record.

¶15

Today, the original record has been produced for perusal of the Court.

¶16

We have perused the original record and find that the appellant indeed has obtained 69 marks only.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents also made submissions that the certificate produced by the appellant at Annexure No. 1 to the Special Appeal (Page 31) is apparently forged, inasmuch, the certificate serial no. indicated is 0700087246 whereas all the certificates which have been issued by the respondents, are having only five digits and by way of example, one such certificate has been produced.

¶18

Further submissions have been made that a verification said to have been issued by the respondents also apparently has not been issued by the said Authority as the Dispatch number as shown when compared with the original which also has been produced for perusal of the Court indicates some other correspondence.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute the original record produced for perusal of the Court.

¶20

In view of the above fact situation, wherein it is found that the appellant had obtained 69 marks and was therefore not eligible for appointment, the cancellation of his appointment by the respondents cannot be faulted.

¶21

There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶22

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Asheesh

¶23

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Civil Secrtt. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Civil Secrtt. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prakash Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Rural Development, Lucknow and Others

C/M Intermediate Collage Para Hamidpur Thru. Manager Pratima Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary. Edu. Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and Others vs Ramesh Chandra and Others

Shiv Narayan Gupta Vs Sri Uma Shankar Prasad and 2 Others

Anant Singh vs Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra-Ii Thru. Its Chairman and 5 Others

Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 2 Others