DHARAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in July, 1973 in Swargiya Haribans Singh Inter College, Rewari, Fatehpur. He obtained his B.Ed. degree from Magadh University and as as result of which, he was given full grade of the C.T. grade teacher and his appointment was approved in the L.T. grade in the year 1975 by the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur. He continued to work as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade up to the year 1980.

(2.) A complaint was filed against the petitioner that he has obtained forged degree of B.Ed. course. As a result of which an FIR was lodged against him under sections 419, 420, 465 and 471 IPC. On account of registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade. As a consequence of which the petitioner was removed from the service in the year 1980. This order has not been questioned by the petitioner before any court of law.

(3.) The criminal case registered against the petitioner was subject matter of trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who acquitted him of the charges on 19.10.1993. After his acquittal the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 3 for reinstating him in service. The respondent no. 3 rejected his application for reinstatement on the ground that his B.Ed. certificate was forged. On a reference being made to the Joint Director of Education, the matter was heard and decided in favour of the petitioner. The reasoning given by the Joint Director of Education is that the District Inspector of Schools respondent no. 3 could not order cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under section 16-E (10) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short as the 'Act'). The order further contemplates that in case any appointment has been procured in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Director of Education, in case of teacher, may after affording opportunity to hear to such person can cancel the appointment. However, while allowing the plea of the petitioner, respondent no. 2 directed that the appointment of the petitioner will take effect from 1996. This part of the order is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.