Suresh Chand v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reserved on : 28.04.2025 Delivered on : 07.05.2025 Court No. - 6

¶1Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7382 of 2023 Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Giri Counsel for Respondent :- Yatindra

¶2Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29991 of 2015 Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Upadhyay,Pawan Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kuldeep Kumar,Yatindra

¶3Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26330 of 2015 Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Pathak,B.N. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yatindra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Yatindra, Advocate for Respondents in all connected writ petitions.

¶2It is not under dispute that petitioner was appointed on

14.03.1995 as Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School Pachauta Vikash Kshetra, Bulandshahr and was promoted in the year 2003 as Headmaster. Thereafter a dispute arose that since petitioner has passed certificate of Junior Basic Training (J.B.T.) issued from Government Educational Teachers Training Institute of the Delhi Administration in the year 1981-83, 1 of 6 which was not recognized in State of U.P., therefore, an inquiry was initiated.

¶3The above dispute arose after 19 years and the petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 31.07.2014, which was challenged in a Writ Petition bearing No.42882 of 2014, wherein by an order dated 25.08.2014, the suspension order was stayed, though it was permitted that disciplinary proceeding may go on. The said writ petition was disposed of by following order dated 04.03.2024, since meanwhile, an order of termination was passed. "1. Heard Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for respondents.

¶2In the present writ petition, challenge is to the suspension order. However, learned counsel for parties are not in dispute that petitioner's services has been terminated by subsequent order which is subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.26330 of 2015 and 29991 of 2015.

¶3Considering the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of."

¶4Meanwhile, in furtherance of above referred interim order, on 30.12.2014, a notice was issued to the petitioner that he has wrongly shown his training certificate. The notice was challenged by way of filing a Writ Petition bearing No.26330 of 2015 (first writ petition in this bunch).

¶5In the aforesaid petition, an order dated 07.05.2015 was passed, whereby it was directed that no further action will be taken against petitioner till next date of listing. Meanwhile, though he may furnish explanation to the notice.

¶6Thereafter, matter was considered by District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahr and by order dated 06.05.2015, petitioner's appointment was cancelled void ab initio on a 2 of 6 ground that J.B.T. Training from the Institute at Delhi was not recognized in State of U.P., with a direction to recover entire salary paid i.e. paid for last 20 years as it was considered as a fraud. The relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter :- "मेरे ्ቛारा ्ቦी सुरेश चन्द से सम्ब቏ኌन्त ्ቚकरण का अवलोकन किकया गया तथा ्ቦी सुरेश चन्द ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत प्ቔाजातों का परी्ቌण किकया गया। ቏ኌस्थतित किनम्नवत् पायी गयी।्ቦ ी सुरेश चन्द की ्ቚथम किनयुकि* काया+लय के आदेश संख्या ्ቚबन् / 5558-5900/94-95 किदनांक 14.03.1995 ्ቛारा सहायक अध्यापक परिरषदीय ्ቚाथकिमक किव्ቕालय पचौता किवकास ्ቌे्ቔ बुलन्दशहर में राज्य शिश्ቌा संस्थान, किद्ቤी से ्ቚा्቎ जे०बी०टी० ्ቚशिश्ቌण योग्यता के आार पर की गयी थी। सतिचव

, उ०्ቚ० बेसिसक शिश्ቌा परिरषद्

, इलाहाबाद ने

अपने प्ቔांकः बे०शिश०प०

/17546/2013-14

किदनांक

25.03.2014

्ቛारा अवगत

कराया किक जे०बी०टी० ्ቚशिश्ቌण राज्य शिश्ቌा संस्थान किद्ቤी से मान्यता ्ቚा्቎ करके कूटरतिचत तरीके से परिरषदीय किव्ቕालयों में शिश्ቌक पद पर किनयु* हुए हैं सिजसके कारण ्ቦी सुरेश चन्द की सेवायें समा्቎ किकये जाने योग्य हैं

, तथा कपटपूण+ तरीके से ्ቚा्቎ की गयी

नराशिश वसूल किकये जाने योग्य है। अतः सतिचव, महोदय के उ* प्ቔ किदनांक

25.03.2014 में किदये गये किनदFशों के अनुसार ्ቦी सुरेश चन्द की किनयुकि* किनयमानुसार नहीं है। ये किनयुकि* हेतु पूण+ अह+ता नहीं रखते हैं।"

¶7The aforesaid order was challenged in Writ Petition bearing No.29991 of 2015 (second writ petition of this bunch), wherein by an order dated 21.05.2015, impugned order dated

06.05.2015 was stayed. It is not under dispute that petitioner has served on basis of aforesaid interim order and has also retired recently i.e. on 31.03.2022 and when his pension papers were not prepared, he has filed third writ petition bearing No. 7382 of 2023.

¶8Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner after serving for 27 years has retired and that it is not disputed that petitioner has passed J.P.T. Certificate from S.C.E.R.T., Delhi, an Institute established by Delhi Administration and he referred a Government Order dated

16.03.1973, issued by Uttar Pradesh that a certificate issued by any Institute established by Central or State could be 3 of 6 considered to be recognized for appointment of a teacher in the State of U.P. if established under any Central or State Act or recognized by UGC or conducted by any Deemed University.

¶9Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that course of J.P.T. was equal to B.T.C. which is recognized in State of U.P. Learned Senior Counsel refers judgment passed by this Court in Ram Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023

(12) ADJ 224, Shambhu Rao Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, 2022:AHC:224898, Committee of Management of Rajendra Prasad Intermediate College, Bareilly Vs. District Inspector of Schools Bareilly and anothers, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 189 and Man Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Secretary and Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 7841 of 2011 that such long period of service be protected. The petitioner may not be unsuited at this stage. Order of recovery of salary was also bad in law.

¶10Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that J.P.T. was never recognized in the State of U.P., therefore, petitioner's appointment was cancelled though he has not disputed that petitioner has served till the age of superannuation on basis of interim order passed in present case. Learned counsel referred judgment passed by this Court in Shiv Datt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 2024 0 Supreme(All) 472 that an appointment based on fraud has no legal status and could be cancelled void ab initio even after many years. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that Shiv Datta Sharma (supra) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. 4 of 6

¶11I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. As referred above, petitioner has served for 27 years and has retired. A dispute in regard to J.P.T. Certificate was raised for the first time after about 19 years and only on ground that Institute at Delhi was not recognized by State of U.P. an order that petitioner's services was void ab initio was passed and further order of recovery of salary of about 20 years was also passed.

¶12No document was placed by respondent to show how J.B.T. Training from an Institute at Delhi was not recognized in State of U.P., whereas petitioner's counsel has shown a G.O. dated 16.03.1973 that a certificate issued by Institution of another State under certain conditions could be accepted in State of U.P.

¶13In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court also takes note that petitioner has already served about 27 years and has retired also, therefore, taking note of Man Singh (supra), wherein it was held that if the employee has discharged the duties and even if his appointment was irregular, his salary cannot be stopped, whereas in present case, it is not very clear whether J.P.T. issued by S.C.E.R.T. Delhi was specifically not recognized since in impugned order, no G.O. was referred that how recognition was made or not by State of U.P. in regard to certificate passed from any Institute, established by other States.

¶14In above referred peculiar circumstances, to cancel the appointment of petitioner void ab initio after 20 years being against the interest of justice is unsustainable, therefore, 5 of 6 impugned termination order dated 06.05.2015 is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.29991 of 2015 is disposed of.

¶15On basis of above referred circumstances, Writ Petition No. 26330 of 2015 is disposed of.

¶16Accordingly, Writ Petition No.7382 of 2023 is also disposed of with a direction that since termination order is set aside, therefore, its legal consequence shall follow, including fixation of pension, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶17Accordingly, All writ petitions are finally disposed of. Order Date :- 07.05.2025 P. Pandey 6 of 6 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad