Ganga Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Supplementary affidavit filed today by counsel for the petitioner and counter affidavit filed today by counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶11

Instant petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 30.07.2025, whereby, services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher has been terminated.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Department of Basic Education on 12.12.2020 and in fact, he joined on 08.12.2020. He submits that on a complaint made by a stranger, an inquiry was initiated, wherein, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded and on the wrong pretext, the order impugned was passed.

¶13

He argued that the petitioner had failed in high school examination, wherein, his date of birth was mentioned as 05.07.1990, whereafter, he again appeared in high school examination, wherein, his date of birth has been mentioned as 05.07.1988, whereby, he declared passed and he again appeared in high school examination under Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, wherein, the date of birth has been mentioned as 05.07.1992. He submitted that at the time of appointment, the high school marksheet was placed,

¶14

WRIA No. 12533 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

wherein, his date of birth is mentioned as 05.07.1988.

¶17

He argued that under certain misconception, the date of birth was changed, whereafter, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition for correction of the date of birth bearing Writ C No. 1547 of 2024, which is pending consideration before this Court. He submitted that due to anonymity, the village person has moved the complaint and taking course of action, the enquiry was instituted, though, without properly associating the petitioner, the Disciplinary Officer has passed the order.

¶18

He submitted that once the writ petition is pending consideration for correction of the date of birth, the District Basic Education Officer has no authority to pass any order terminating the services of the petitioner. He also submitted that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 05.07.1988, therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 30.07.2025 is unsustainable, thus, the same may be quashed.

¶19

On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the date of birth, which was mentioned at the time of appointment, is 05.07.1988, by presenting the high school marksheet. He submitted that once the Enquiry was done, it was found that there are three marksheets, out of which in one marksheet, the petitioner has been failed and the date of birth was mentioned as 05.07.1990, subsequently, when he passed high school examination, the date of birth was found mentioned as 05.07.1988 and again date of birth is mentioned as 05.07.1992 in the high school examination of Sanskrti Shiksha Board. He submits that this fact has also been admitted by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit.

¶20

In addition, he argued that the petitioner has obtained the appointment on the basis of a forged document, wherein, after issuing a show cause notice, chargesheet was issued, thereafter, inspite of the several calls, he did not appear and the Enquiry Officer has concluded the enquiry proceedings and reaches to the conclusion that the fake marksheet was produced for getting appointed, thus, the appointment of the petitioner had been terminated, therefore, submission is that there is no ambiguity or erroneousness in the impugned order.

¶21

Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that there are two marksheets, one- high school passed, wherein, the date of birth is mentioned is 05.07.1988 and the second one from the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, wherein, the date of birth is mentioned as 05.07.1992. This Court finds that the writ petition has also been preferred by the petitioner for

¶22

WRIA No. 12533 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

getting corrected his date of birth i.e. Writ C No. 1547 of 2024, which is pending consideration before this Court. It is apparent that the marksheet of high school examinations are from two Boards, one from U.P. Board and second is from Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, which is permissible under the law.

¶25

It seems that the date of birth has differently mentioned in both the marksheets, but since the matter is subjudice before this Court, therefore, unless any order is passed by this Court, deciding the issue, no further order can be passed by the District Basic Education Officer.

¶26

Learned counsels for the respondents submits that the matter may be remanded back to the authority concerned to proceed a fresh, in light of the aforesaid observations of this Court.

¶27

Consequently, the order impugned dated 30.07.2025, is hereby quashed.

¶28

The matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer concerned to take a fresh decision in light of the aforesaid observations.

¶29

The instant writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶30

It is directed that the petitioner shall cooperate in the further proceedings going to be undertaken by the District Basic Education Officer.

¶31

Needless to say that the petitioner would be reinstated in the meantime and that would be the subject matter of the final outcome of the decision taken by the District Basic Education Officer and he shall also be paid salary for the period, he worked.

¶32

November 19, 2025

¶33

Mayank

¶34

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharm Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.of Madhyamik Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Abdul Kareem Vs U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.Lko.through Chairman and Another

Dharmendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industry and Cane Development Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Madhuri Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt. of Up Lucknow and Ors.

Roop Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Ved Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Basic Edu.Lko.and Ors.