FIRDOUSA AKTHER Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER alleges that she was appointed as a teacher by District Education Officer, Pulwama under order No. DSF, 1344 dated 21.3.1990 (Annexure P -l) and has been working thereafter under Tehsil Education Officer, Pulwama. Though there is nothing adverse against her, respondents are eager to discontinue her services. Having been appointed in the arrangement since 1990 and having worked although, She has a right to continue under temporary Rules 1961. Besides she has been appointed against a clear vacancy and is so working since 28.3.90, therefore, as adhoc employee she is entitled to regularization under the Govt. order issued on 11.9.89. In the premises she is praying for mandamus for regularisation of her service retrospectively and for continuance on the post as such teacher.

(2.) RESPONDENTS through Director School Education Kashmir has filed objections on affidavit. It is stated that petitioner has suppressed the true and correct facts and the writ merits to be dismissed on that score. The appointment of petitioner is under fake and forged order. The large scale fake, forged and fraudulent appointments particularly in Education Department in District Pulwama came to the notice of Government. A criminal case was registered and appointments were verified and appointees wise too the Director School Education Kashmir verified the various appointments after the concerned persons were asked to produce the appointment order (s) and relieving order etc. in original. However, on verification of recruits of Zone Pulwama it concluded, 'Petitioner has managed fraudulent entry into the department by fake relieving order with the connivance of some officials of the department. Consequently, FIRs were registered in respect of fake appointments in District Pulwama and enquiries were initiated and in first instance 147 fake appointments in the Education Department in District Pulwama were found. The petitioner's name also figures in the list of said fake appointments at S. No. 89 and the investigation was taken by the vigilance organisation in this behalf.' Besides appointment order being fake and forged the appointment on its face is de hors the rules providing for recruitment/appointment to the post of teacher in the Education Department. The entry of petitioner is nowhere stated or shown covered by any rule on the subject. As the petitioner's appointment is de hors the rules, besides fraudulent, she cannot claim any benefit on the basis of this order, (may be of continuance of petitioner) under any rule or order providing therefore. It is further averred that petitioner has at no point of time worked from 1990 in Zone Pulwama as a teacher and averments made in the petition thereto are wholly wrong and untrue. Even she has not worked after 1995 as teacher as alleged by her.

(3.) IN reply respondents have specifically refuted the genuineness of this certificate with the appointment order (Annexure P1 and P2). It is stated that the annexed Photostat copies of the orders are not genuine and are in fact fake.