SAMASH DEEN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for quite some time on 17.5.2012, this Court passed the following:

(2.) IN case, as on 7.11.2007, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) had directed the Block Primary Education Officer to take action against the private respondent, one fails to understand as to how in the affidavit filed by the Director Elementary Education on 29th April, 2008, it was stated that the selection was proper. It is further stated in the affidavit filed by the Secretary (Education) that action should have been taken against the private respondent even in the year 2007, but the Block Primary Education Officer, Tissa retired on superannuation and hence no action could be taken. The Court is shocked to learn the helplessness on the part of the Government, even after finding on enquiry that the private respondent had produced a fake certificate and yet further action could not be taken only because the Block Primary Education Officer had since superannuated. It is seen that the private respondent is still working as a teacher. There will be a direction to the first respondent to be present before this Court on the next date of hearing. It shall also be explained as to what action the Government proposes to take against the then Director Elementary Education filing the affidavit suppressing the fact and also the Block Primary Education officer, who failed to take action despite the direction from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). It shall further be explained as to what is the helplessness shown in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in taking action against a person despite finding in the enquiry that a fake certificate had been produced at the time of interview.

(3.) WITH these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.