GHULAM MOHIUDDIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioners allege that they were appointed in a stop-gap arrangement somewhere in March 1995. As the Education Department had suspicions about their appointment/engagement, they along with two other persons were asked to produce before the authority the first appointment order in original. However, they failed to do so. In the meanwhile petitioners filed Writ Petition 3374-76/96 for release of salary which writ petition was finally disposed of on 16.4.1999 in terms directing respondents to release undisbursed pay dues to the petitioners for the work done and duties rendered in case their appointment and posting as Teachers in the School Education Department of the State is genuine and valid. The authorities, while in process of verification of the genuineness of the appointments/engagements of the petitioners, faced contempt petitions 588/99 and 2 of 2001, allegedly for not implementing the above order. The School Education Department on failure of the petitioners to produce original initial appointment orders and on being satisfied that the petitioners managed their entry in the Department fraudulently disengaged their engagement/service. The same stand was taken before the contempt court. The contempt petitions were disposed of by order dated 28.9.2001 after holding that the respondents were not in contempt and did not disobey the Court order.

(2.) Shorn of details, petitioners' case is that their appointment in Government Boys High School Matihindoo Anantnag is rooted to communication 47758-59 dated 24.3.1995 addressed by CEO to ZEO Vailoo (Annexure A). Their appointment as Teachers in stop-gap was made by the ZEO. The record of the ZEO was snatched by the militants about which FIR 76/1995 is registered at Police Station Kokernag. Though some fake appointment cases are referred to the Crime Branch for investigation, petitioners did not figure in such cases. Petitioners since have been dismissed in disregard to facts of the case. In the earlier writ petition, there (sic)

(3.) Respondents' stand, disclosed through reply filed by the Director School Education as re-inforced in his submission by the Ld. AAG, is that the claimed engagement/appointment of the petitioners is fraudulent. Petitioners taking undue advantage of peaking militancy conditions at relevant time in the Valley and that too in a remote area of valley like village Matihindoo, managed fake and forged relieving order to show as if petitioners were appointed pursuant to the order dated 24.3.1995 of CEO Ananatnag (Annexure-A). Petitioners at no point of time were ever engaged/appointed in the School Education Deptt., of Education (of State ?). Petitioners, dispute being asked to produce the original first appointment orders, have failed to do that. (Naturally) from the School records, petitioners are not shown to be ever appointed/engaged as Teachers, as claimed by them. The impugned order was passed after considering the matter and taking all aspects of the matter into consideration. The order is not vitiated on any count.