JUDGMENT
B.S. Chauhan and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
1. All the above three special appeals were heard together and as jointly agreed by the parties, are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts of the appeals are interlinked and are interwoven and as a matter of fact, the special appeal No. 1153 of 2002 and 1189 of 2002 arise out of a common judgment of learned Single Judge disposing of seven writ petitions.
2. The facts giving rise to these intra court appeals in brief are as follows:
Smt. Manju Keshi Dixit, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) was working as a teacher in the institution known as Surjo Bai Balika Inter College, Hathras, District Hathras having been appointed as an Assistant Teacher (English) in L.T. grade on October 1, 1974. Her case is that she was being paid salary as admissible to an Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade throughout for a considerable period of time. She also filed experience certificates dated 26.4.1983 and 11th January, 1996 in support of her claim certifying that she has been working as L.T. grade teacher. The certificate dated 11th of January, 1996 has been countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of salary bill (record) produced by the College. However, the dispute arose around the year 1997 when the Committee of Management unauthorisedly deducted three days salary of the writ petitioner which on a representation made by the writ petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools was directed to be paid to her. She was suspended by one sentence order dated 12th of May, 1997. The operation of the said order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 29th of May, 1997 passed in writ petition No. 18266 of 1997. The said suspension order has been quashed and the said writ petition has been finally allowed against which the Committee of Management has not filed any appeal. It may also be placed on record that the Committee of Management filed another writ petition No. 34469 of 1997 claiming writ of Mandamus to the District Inspector of Schools to approve the suspension order passed by the Committee of Management. The said writ petition has been dismissed by this Court by the same judgment dated 12th of May, 1997.
3. Special appeal No. 1153 of 2002 and 1189 of 2002 arise out of judgment delivered in the writ petition No. 21685 of 1999 in Smt. Manju Keshi Dixit v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra. The said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 23rd of December, 1998 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra. By the said order the claim of seniority of the writ petitioner was rejected vis-a-vis Smt. Raj Kumari. The said writ petition has been allowed by the Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment wherein it has been held that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in the year 1974 in the College and had rightly been paid salary of the said grade. The Deputy Director of Education, Agra was directed to redecide seniority in the light of the observations made in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. But while allowing the writ petition, the Learned Single Judge has also observed that the question as to whether any criminal proceeding may be initiated or not as ordered by the Court in its order dated 15th of September, 1999 is left to the Director of Education to take appropriate action and fix responsibility after affording opportunity to the parties and to the Manager of the College.
4. The aforestated two special appeals No. 1153 of 2002 and 1189 of 2002 have been filed: one by the Committee of Management and another by Smt. Raj Kumari. The main grievance of the appellants is that the Learned Single Judge has exceeded in its jurisdiction in making observation as to whether any criminal proceedings would be initiated or not as observed by its earlier order dated 15th of November, 1999 is left to the Director of Education who has lodged first information report.
5. It appears that in the light of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge in the judgment in the aforesaid two special appeals, the Director of Education passed an order dated 9th/10th July, 2003 superceding the Managing Committee and directing the lodging of the first information report against the Manager of the Committee of Management. This led the filing of the writ petition No. 32024 of 2003: Committee of Management of Surjo Bai Balika Inter College v. State of U.P. and Ors. The said writ petition has been allowed in part and the order superceding the Managing Committee has been set aside but rest of the order has been confirmed by the Learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 27th of February, 2004. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Learned Single Judge, the Committee of Management has filed special appeal No. 337 of 2004.
6. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioner who appeared in person. All the above three matters were heard together.
7. At the very outset, it may be stated here that no attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to challenge the findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge on the merits of the case holding the claim of the writ petitioner that she is senior to Smt. Raj Kumari being appointed in L.T. grade since the very inception of her service. Also no attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to the observations made by the Learned Single Judge after perusing the original record produced before him by the parties on various occasions with regard to the interpolation therein. It is not out of place to mention here that in the meantime the writ petitioner has reached the age of superannuation and thus with the passage of time all other controversies have come to an end. Even otherwise also in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 1996 (Suppl.) AWC 206 the special appeal against finding of the Learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner is senior, is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.
8. However, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that special appeal is maintainable against the later part of the judgment, whereby this Court observed that criminal proceedings may be initiated if Director of Education so thinks appropriate and fix responsibility after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and to the Manager, can be challenged in special appeal as the said portion of the judgment shall be deemed to have been passed by writ court for the first time. Elaborating the argument, he submitted that even otherwise, the order initiating criminal proceedings was subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 32024 of 2003 before the Learned Single Judge who refused to issue the necessary writ by the order under appeal in special appeal No. 337 of 2004, appeal lies. Reliance has been placed by him on Ram Rai Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools 1996 (27) ALR 316 (a judgment of Apex Court) wherein it has been held that in reality the appellate order consists of as many as orders as there are appeals disposed of thereby. Cumbum Roadways (P)Ltd. Madurai v. Somu Transport (P) Ltd. has been relied upon. The another judgment relied upon by him is, (1998) 3 UPLBEC 233 A.P. Verma, Principal Secretary. Medical Health and Family Welfare v. U.P. Laboratory Technician Association.
9. On merits, he submitted that basis of the impugned judgment against which the appellant is aggrieved is the order dated 15th of November, 1999. From this order he submitted that no case for initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner has been made out.
10. We have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. To appreciate the controversy involved it is necessary to notice the salient features of the case relevant for our purposes. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on October 1st, 1974. She was paid salary of L.T. grade teacher till 1997 without there being any objection even by the Committee of Management. Trouble arose for the first time in the year 1997 when the Committee of Management started treating the appointment of the writ petitioner in C.T. grade w.e.f. October 1st, 1974 and sought to recover excess payment i.e. the difference in between the L.T. grade and the C.T. grade.
11. As pointed above, some deduction was made in the salary of the writ petitioner and she was also put under suspension. The matter reached before this Court in the shape of various writ petitions filed by the parties. This Court summoned the original record and examined the service book, payment of salaries made to the writ petitioner, the two advertisements issued by the Committee of Management inviting applications for the post in question and the other records produced by the parties. After examining the advertisements issued by the Committee of Management for the post in question, qualification as prescribed under the Statutes and the salary paid to the writ petitioner as well as the experience certificates issued in her favour, this Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the L.T. grade in the year 1974 and the stand taken by the Management is unjustified. It has been observed in the judgment which reads as follows:
Further interpolation in the record has also been noticed by this Court.
12. The Learned Single Judge has also reproduced the earlier order passed by another Learned Single Judge dated 15th of November, 1999. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced blow:
…District Inspector of Schools Hathras is present in the Court. He is also directed to inform Smt. Vijaya Nayyar and Smt. Rajkumari that the petition will be taken up for admission/final disposal on 14.12.1999 by which date counter affidavit, if any be filed by the newly added respondents. The service book and some other records have been produced by Shri R.N. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4. Shri Shri S.N. Srivastava, learned standing counsel appearing for District Inspector of Schools, Hathras has also produced some records but he has not produced the order passed by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Agra, approving the appointment of the petitioner. He says that it is not available in his office. The Court was inclined to direct an enquiry by C.B.I. but District Inspector of Schools, Hathras prays that he be allowed some more time to produce the appointment letter of the petitioner and approval granted by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Agra to the appointment of the petitioner as well as the records showing the first payment of salary to the petitioner and he shall also file affidavit as to in which grade the petitioner’s first salary was paid, whether in L.T. grade or in C. T. grade.
Records are returned to the counsel for the parties. The parties shall produce the records again on the date fixed. The approval order showing approval to the appointment of the petitioner which was produced by learned Counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 prima facie shows that there is some interpolation in it. The service book produced by the learned Counsel for the respondent Shri R.N. Singh does not disclose that the petitioner was appointed as C. T. Grade teacher it shows that she was appointed in L T grade.
Shri R.N. Singh has prayed that an opportunity be given to him to argue on the question of accountability of the Manager of the Institution, the quantum of compensation, if any, to which the petitioner may be entitled and further as to whether any criminal proceedings should be initiated against the Manager or not….
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed by the Learned Single Judge in his judgment, we are of the opinion that the Learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view in the matter after noticing the interpolation in the record and no interference in appeal is called for. It is but obvious that the writ petitioner has been harassed at the hands of the Committee of Management for no plausible reason. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant took charge of the new Committee of Management for the first time in the year 1996-97 and the writ petitioner having been paid all the dues as per judgment of the Learned Single Judge deserves no sympathy of the Court. The appellant was already holding office in the Committee of Management since before, as rightly pointed out by the writ petitioner. Even otherwise in appeal we are exercising the powers of the writ court and it is, in that view of the matter, not a fit case to exercise any discretion in favour of the writ petitioner. “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation” (See 1994 S.C. 853 S.P. Chengalyaraya Naidu v. Jagannath). It has been reiterated in Hamza Han v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2006(8) JT 215.
14. In the result all the three appeals are dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands Only) in all. Which may be paid to Suit Manju Kashi Dixit.