1. This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 January 2016. By the judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge has held that the appointment of the appellant on compassionate basis in the post of Assistant Teacher was vitiated by fraud and that consequently the appointment was validly rescinded.
The writ petition has, in consequence, been dismissed.
2. The dispute in question, relates to an institution which was prior to 1996 imparting education upto the junior high school level. In 1996, the institution was upgraded as a High School. In 1998, the institution was further upgraded as an Intermediate College. The father of the appellant was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the institution and died in harness on 1 May 1995. The appellant was about fifteen years of age on the date of death of his father having passed the High School examination in 1994. After completing his Intermediate examination in 1997, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 26 June 1998. In 2002, the appellant was offered appointment on a Class IV post which he declined to accept. Having passed his BA in 2000, the appellant submitted an application on 1 June 2002 for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The District Level Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 8 September 2003, is stated to have demanded certain documents from the appellant which he claims to have submitted on 2 January 2004. On 27 July 2004, an order was passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur purportedly on the recommendation of the District Level Selection Committee for the appointment of the appellant as an untrained Assistant Teacher on compassionate basis. The Joint Director of Education issued an order on 9 November 2004 since he was functioning as an Authorised Controller of the institution at the material time.
3. A complaint was submitted in 2012 in regard to the appointment of the appellant which was forwarded to the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur. The District Basic Education Officer was directed to conduct an enquiry on 10 May 2012. In the meantime, the appellant filed a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) to pass final orders. On 17 December 2012, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) rejected the representation of the appellant. The appellant moved proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the said order, which have been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
4. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, an affidavit was filed by the District Basic Education Officer on the basis of which, the learned Single Judge has accepted the case that the appointment of the appellant was vitiated by fraud. The appointment of the appellant was on the basis of a resolution allegedly passed by the District Level Selection Committee on 14 July 2004. In his affidavit before the learned Single Judge, the District Basic Education Officer stated that the original register which is maintained by his office does not contain any proceeding of 14 July 2004 and the proceeding upon which the appellant placed reliance was forged and fabricated. The affidavit of the District Basic Education Officer also indicates that after 18 December 2003, a meeting of the District Level Selection Committee was held only on 10 May 2006 and between 19 December 2003 and 9 May 2006, no meeting was held. Consequently, the alleged minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2004 were found to be fabricated. The learned Single Judge has, after a careful perusal of the record, come to the conclusion that the very basis of the appointment of the appellant was vitiated by fraud since no meeting of the District Level Selection Committee, which was constituted for considering the cases of compassionate appointment, had in fact been held.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made an effort to assail these findings by submitting that the appellant had produced a photocopy of the alleged minutes though the original is stated to be unavailable. It was submitted that a verification ought to have been conducted from the individual members of the Committee.
6. We find no substance in the contention. The learned Single Judge has adverted to the factual position that between 19 December 2003 and 9 May 2006, no meeting of the District Level Selection Committee was held at all. Hence, the minutes of the meeting dated 14 July 2004 upon which the appellant placed reliance were fraudulent. The appellant was the direct beneficiary of the fraud.
7. That apart, it is not in dispute that the institution was upgraded as an Intermediate College in 1998 upon which, it was governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Basic Education Officer would evidently have no jurisdiction thereafter. The only submission which has been advanced by the appellant is based on Section 13-A of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. Section 13-A provides that the provisions of the Act shall continue to apply to an institution which is upgraded to High School or Intermediate standard and to such teachers and other employees thereof in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government. These transitory provisions contained in Section 13-A are made in the context of a statute which governs the payment of salary to teachers and other employees of a Junior High School. Once the institution in question, stood upgraded as an Intermediate institution, the District Basic Education Officer would clearly have no jurisdiction to issue any order or direction in the nature of compassionate appointment.
8. Finally, it may be noted that the death of the employee had taken place on 1 May 1995. The appellant was admittedly offered appointment on a Class IV post in 2002 which he declined to accept and it was only in 2004, nearly nine years after the death of the employee, that the purported appointment was issued to him based on a resolution of 14 July 2004 which has been found to be fraudulent.
9. In this view of the matter, the dismissal of the writ petition cannot be faulted. The appellant was the direct beneficiary of the fraud and would not be entitled to assert any claim on the basis of an illegal appointment.
10. The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
