Ram Abhilash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Heard Shri G.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Suryakant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6 and Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶11

On 09.04.2026, the following order was passed :-

¶12

"1. Heard Shri G.C.Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raman Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6. Shri Mohd. Irfan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Kumar Ayush for the respondent no.5. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by respondent no.5 Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bahraich and the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the respondent no. 6 Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow.

¶13

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 5 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated, is without jurisdiction. He submits that the said order could have been passed only by the Committee duly constituted as per Government Order dated 13.5.2016. it is further contended that the order is bad in law as the same has been passed without holding any enquiry as per U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999. It is vehemently argued by learned Senior Advocate that admittedly, the disability certificate which was submitted by the petitioner along with his application form has not been found forged. It is contended that less than 40% disability has been attributed on the basis of alleged report dated 05.03.2022. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued that vide the impugned order, major penalty has been imposed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice.

¶14

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents prays for and is

¶15

WRIA No. 3518 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

allowed a weeks' time to seek complete instructions in the matter. The record of the Medical Board wherein the disability of the petitioner has been assessed as less than 40% shall also be produced before this Court on the next date fixed.

¶18

5. List this case on 16.04.2026 as fresh at 02:15 p.m.

¶19

6. Office is directed to show the name of Shri Kumar Ayush on behalf of respondent no. 5 whenever the case is listed next.

¶20

7. The record shall be produced before this court by some responsible Officer not below the rank of Deputy Chief Medical Officer. "

¶21

In pursuance of aforesaid order, a sealed cover Envelope is placed before this court by Shri Ran Vijay, Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. After opening the letter of Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow dated 15.04.2026, addressed to Chief Standing Counsel along with the letter dated 22.03.2026 of Medical Superintendent, Gandhi Smarak Hospital, Lucknow as well as letter dated 04.02.2022 issued by Dr. Anupam Mishra, Department of ENT, King George Medical University, addressed to Chief Medical Superintendent KGMU, Lucknow containing the list of 65 persons and a medico-legal report duly signed by the panel of three Doctors in which it is mentioned that after examining, less than 40% hearing disability of the petitioner is found. The said documents are taken on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Teacher. He further submitted that opinion given by the Medical Board is not permissible as there must be a definite opinion. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the this Court in the case of Writ Petition (A) No.2029 of 2020 (Smt. Anita Keserwani vs. State of U.P. and others) dated 5.5.2023 which was challenged by the Basic Education Board in Special Appeal (D) No.742 of 2024. The said appeal was dismissed on 09.05.2025.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a case of the Basic Education Department that the certificate which was placed at the time of getting employment was forged. Thereafter, another certificate was issued on 20.01.2020. In the said certificate, 65% hearing disability of the petitioner was also found and hence petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board. Again the Medical Board issued a certificate saying that he is having hearing disability less than 40% is not a definite opinion and there is no allegation in the termination order that the petitioner committed any forgery in

¶24

WRIA No. 3518 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

the disability certificate, as in the termination order, it is alleged that employment was obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated document.

¶27

Learned counsel further submitted that in case, any definite opinion was given by the Medical Board, then the Doctors who were in panel are responsible but no action was recommended against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed that District Basic Education Officer, Bahraich also forwarded a letter to police officials for lodging of the FIR therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submitted that in pursuance of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, exercise was initiated. At this stage, they do not dispute about the genuineness of the Medical Disability Certificate dated 20.01.2020 of the petitioner which was placed at the time of getting employment.

¶29

Considering learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as letter dated 15.04.2026 signed by Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow along with medical opinion of the Medical Board in which it is mentioned that less than 40% disability is found, which is not proper and definite opinion therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. It is not a case of the Department that Medical Disability Certificate which was placed at the time of getting employment was forged but in the order, it is observed by the District Basic Education Officer that on the basis of forged and fabricated Medical Disability Certificate, employment was obtained by the petitioner therefore, prima faice, the matter requires consideration.

¶30

List this case on 29.04.2026.

¶31

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents.

¶32

In the meantime, the operation and implementation of the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by respondent no. 5 shall remain stayed.

¶33

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶34

April 16, 2026 PS

¶35

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Abhilash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Abhilash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Master Atharv Nigam vs Sh Nitin Nigam and Another

Indramani Singh vs Dr. Semmaran M. Conservator of Forest, Devi Patan Circle U.P. Gonda

Dharm Pal Yadav vs Shri Babu Lal Meena, Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture and Food Processing Lko.

Muguva vs Union of India and Another

Ram Milan Singh Tomar and 2 Others vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Lalit Soni and 4 Others vs Padum Kumar Rastogi and 2 Others