IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 736 of 2007
...
Ganesh Prasad Verma ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The District Education Establishment
Committee, Giridih, Jharkhand
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih
5. the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : - M. Jalisur Rahman, J.C. to G.P.-III
...
4 / 14.09.2009
Heard Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
J.C. to G.P.-III for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ application is against
the order dated 31.05.2006 (annexure-10) whereby the service of the
petitioner was terminated purportedly on a misconceived ground
that the certificate produced by him mentioning his date of birth was
a false and fabricated certificate.
3. Sri Rajiv Ranjan would explain that the stand taken by the
respondents is in itself misconceived. The inference drawn by the
respondents against the genuineness of the certificates produced by
the petitioner pertaining to his educational qualifications and
containing his date of birth, is said to be based on an information
obtained from the Board which has issued the certificates to the
petitioner and according to the alleged information, the petitioner’s
date of birth is said to have been stated as 15.07.1970 instead of
15.07.1972.
Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had
received a notice from the respondents calling upon him to explain
the purported discrepancy, the petitioner had replied by requesting
the respondent authorities to obtain a proper information from the
Board and its concerned authorities and had reiterated that the
certificates produced by the petitioner, were infact genuine and
bona-fide documents which the Board had issued to him in
confirmation of the fact that he had passed the examinations.
Inspite of such request, the respondents had proceeded to
terminate the petitioner’s service.
Learned counsel adds that the petitioner had applied before
the Board under the Right to Information Act seeking information as
to his date of birth entered in the official records of the Board and
the reply thereto received by him from the concerned authorities of
the Board reiterates and confirms that the petitioner’s date of birth
as entered in the official records of the Board and as recorded in the
certificates, is 15.07.1972. Learned counsel adds that this being the
factual position, the respondents could not have taken a unilateral
decision without proper verification of the facts regarding the
genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner.
Learned counsel adds further that a similar issue was raised
by a few other teachers whose services were terminated by the same
impugned order, before this court in W.P.(S) No. 3058 of 2006 and
after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners
therein, this Court vide its order dated 04.12.2007, had directed the
respondents to re-consider the issue after giving the petitioners
adequate opportunity of being heard and to take an appropriate
decision on the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State would submit that
the petitioner cannot find any fault in the impugned order
terminating his service in view of the fact that before taking such
decision, the petitioner was given notice to explain but he did not
avail the opportunity. The order for terminating the services, which
was taken not only in the case of the petitioner but also in the cases
of several other teachers, was on bona-fide and genuine grounds in
as much as, the information obtained from the concerned Board
which had purportedly issued the certificates to the petitioner and
the other teachers, were verified and on the basis of the information
furnished by the concerned Boards, it was found that there was
discrepancy in the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner and the
other teachers, as compared to the entry in their respective
certificates.
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has
been furnished with an information by the Board itself under the
Right to Information Act which, appears to confirm that the date of
birth of the petitioner as recorded in the Board’s certificates is
correct, the respondent authorities are directed to re-consider the
issue in respect of the petitioner after examining all the relevant
records and take an appropriate decision on the same within a
period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the
petitioner.
The respondents, if satisfied that the petitioner’s certificates
are genuine then, shall also take a decision on the further prayer of
the petitioner regarding his reinstatement in service.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
respondent State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/