RAJ NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Collection Amin, whose services have been terminated under the impugned order dated 10.12.2009 on the ground that when he was appointed 33 years ago, he did not possess the minimum qualification of Intermediate which was required for the said post and, therefore, his appointment being invalid, the services are liable to be terminated.

(2.) The petitioner was admittedly appointed on 1.1.1977 as a Collection Amin and it is undisputed that he was made regular w.e.f. 1.7.1978 and was confirmed in his services on 10.1.1983. The petitioner passed his Intermediate Examination in the year 1989.

(3.) The nephew of the petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4, made a complaint that the petitioner had gained appointment on the basis of a forged certificate upon which the petitioner was issued a notice on 30.1.2006 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Azamgarh, calling upon him to give a reply to the said allegation made in the complaint. The petitioner submitted a reply that his certificate was not forged and he had been given appointment under the then prevalent qualification which was High School, and which certificate was possessed by him. The District Magistrate issued another direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he has received the said reply and the Addl. District Magistrate has gone into this question and, therefore, appropriate action should be taken. On the strength of such direction, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.12.2007 to explain about his want of qualification on the initial date of appointment. The petitioner submitted a reply on 25.1.2008 indicating that at the time of his appointment, he was in possession of a High School Certificate and on the strength thereof, he was appointed in 1977. He also submitted that the Rule, having been changed with regard to qualification, was not in force nor was it known to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who was the then appointing authority and, therefore, there is no occasion to consider his appointment to be invalid that too even after 32 years of service. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.8.2008 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why his services be not terminated.