SHEIKH IMAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/petitioner preferred this appeal against the order dated 8.4.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.1183/2015 dismissing writ petition filed against the order 28.2.2015 by which the Collector, Gariyaband cancelled appointment of appellant on the post of Shiksha Karmi.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 8.9.2007 petitioner/appellant herein was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat Mainpur by the competent authority. Several complaints were received alleging corruption in the recruitment process of Shiksha Karmi conducted by Janpad Panchayat Mainpur and therefore an enquiry was conducted and on the basis of enquiry report, appointment of petitioner/appellant herein was cancelled on the ground that he procured additional marks on the basis of false and fabricated teaching experience certificate. Feeling aggrieved by order of cancellation of appointment, appellant along with others preferred writ petition before the writ Court and the said writ petition came to be disposed off vide order dated 20.2.2012 with a direction to the concerned authority to enquire into matter and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to respective candidates/Shiksha karmis. In compliance of the order passed by writ Court, the Collector, Gariyabandh issued notice to the petitioner and after affording opportunity of hearing, vide order dated 28.2.2015 removed the appellant herein from the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- III on the ground that teaching experience certificate submitted by him has been issued by a government school, therefore, he could not have been awarded additional marks. It has further been recorded that scout guide certificate submitted by appellant was also not genuine. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2015, appellant preferred writ petition before the writ Court, which is subject matter of this writ appeal. Taking into consideration the fact that documents submitted by petitioner/appellant herein were not found to be genuine, the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that as additional marks were procured by petitioner/appellant on the basis of forged & fabricated certificate submitted along with application form, therefore, he is not entitled for benefit of additional marks.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant submits that present is not a case where appellant has been denied additional marks towards experience on account of submission of forged and fabricated experience certificate. In fact, the additional marks have been denied to appellant by the Collector on the ground that experience certificate produced by him was issued by a government primary school. He refers to a document, which is letter dated 20.7.2007 issued by the Joint Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Govt. of CG, Raipur issued in response to a specific query being made by a Member of Legislative Assembly as to whether marks are to be awarded on the basis of experience certificate issued by a government primary school or not and in this letter it has been specifically mentioned by the Joint Secretary that if a candidate has done teaching work in any government primary school and he has procured teaching experience certificate from that school, then said candidate should be awarded additional marks towards experience. He also refers to order passed by this Court in WPS No.1778/2017 wherein the writ Court while considering issue with respect to award of additional marks to the candidates having experience certificate issued by the District Primary Educational Programme (DPEP), has observed thus:-