DINESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is alleged that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1988 and he was selected vide order dt. 8.11.1988. The petitioner was having B. Ed. from the Mathili University, Darbanga through Delhi Vishwa Vidya Peeth, Delhi, to his credit Vide order dt. 11.3.93 (Anx. 10), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the B. Ed. degree obtained by him is forged and that as per the orders dt.30.11.92 and 23.1.93 the said University has been declared illegal. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) THE respondents have filed reply stating that the petitioner was selected as Teacher Gr. III but he was terminated from service as the B. Ed. degree obtained by him from Mathili University, Darbanga (Bihar) has been found to be illegal. It has been stated that as per direction of the State Government on verification of the degree obtained by the petitioner from Mathili Vishwa -Vidhyapeeth Darbanga (Bihar) and the Mathili Vishwa -Vidhyapeeth, Darbanga it has been informed vide letter dt. 30.11.92 (Anx. R/l) that the B. Ed. examination conducted by the Delhi Vidhyapeeth have been declared illegal and cancelled. The respondent no. 2 again verified vide letter dt. 15.1.93 along with the copies of marksheet and degree of the petitioner. The authorities of the Mathili Vishwa Vidhyapeeth made endorsement that the documents are not related of Mathili Vishwa Vidhyapeeth, Darbanga vide Anx. R/2.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner has been rightly terminated as the petitioner was having forged degree issued in the name of authority who in fact never issued the said degree and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were not required to be followed. He submits that the petitioner can't take advantage of the Division Bench decision as that decision has been given without considering the earlier Division Bench decision rendered in Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. Zila Parishad, Jalore and Ors. 1994 (1) RLR - 721 wherein after considering number of decisions of this Court, it has been held the persons who have secured appointment on the basis of forged documents, cannot invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 even though there may be clear violation of principles of natural justice in dispensing with their services. Mr. Bishnoi submits that when two Division Bench decisions exist on the same point, then the earlier decision will prevail and, therefore, the decision rendered in Mahendra Singh's case (supra) being earlier one will prevail.