HARVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad, Barmer whereby the case of the petitioner was considered and a decision was taken that as the petitioner has failed to produce any proof, evidence and documents to prove that he has obtained B.Ed. Degree from Kanpur University, Kanpur, he is not entitled to reinstate on the post of Teacher Grade III with the respondent -department.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade -III by the Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra on 29.9.1989 purely on temporary basis for period of six months or till availability of regularly selected candidates, whichever is earlier, on a fixed salary of Rs.818/ - per month. The B.Ed. Degree, obtained from the Kanpur University, produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment, was sent for verification and the Kanpur Univewrsity informed the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra that the B.Ed. Degree of the petitioner has not been issued by the said university and the same is forged one.

(3.) IN pursuance of the directions given by this Court, the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad, Barmer has passed the impugned order dated 7.5.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra has filed first information report at the police station Balotra, with the allegation that the petitioner had produced forged degree of B.Ed. at the time of his appointment, however, the police, after thorough investigation, has filed a final report while concluding that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Balotra has filed a protest petition against the final report filed by the police, however, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra vide order dated 8.5.1995 has accepted the said report and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service, but the respondents have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has passed the impugned order denying reinstatement of the petitioner in service.