Court No. 18
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 3149 OF 2010
Uma Nath Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1.
Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj (in short “DIOS”)
rejecting the claim of petitioner for approval of promotion to the
post of Lecturer (History) and payment of salary on the said post
on the ground that the petitioner’s alleged appointment on the post
of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade itself was suspicious and doubtful
since despite of repeated opportunity in the last several years he
could not produce the relevant educational certificates and other
documents, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution has been filed.
2. It is claimed that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Mathematics) on 16.08.1973 possessing the qualification
of B.Sc. and B.Ed. However, subsequently the management made
complaint to the DIOS on 30.12.1999 that despite of repeated
requests the petitioner has not made available the degree of B.Sc.
and B.Ed. to show that his appointment of Assistant Teacher was
valid. Thereafter the DIOS on 13.01.2000 directed the petitioner to
produce the said educational documents. The same were not
produced by the petitioner despite of repeated opportunity granted
to him. Even before this Court the said documents have not been
produced.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner said that the original
certificates/degrees were handed over to the then Manager in 1990
pursuant to an audit objection in 198788 and thereafter the said
documents were not returned by the Manager.
4. The defence is really surprising and strange inasmuch as the
2
original educational certificates/degrees, if have lost, it was open
to the petitioner to obtain duplicate copies thereof from the
concerned University but for the last more than 10 years the
petitioner could not produce the same which shows that the
finding of fact recorded the the DIOS cannot be said to be perverse.
If the very appointment of the petitioner made on the post of
Assistant Teacher in 1973 was not valid since he did not possess
requisite educational qualification the question of promotion to the
post of Lecturer later on on the basis of qualification of M.A.
(History) obtained by him subsequently would not arise.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that after such a long time the validity of the
appointment of petitioner as Assistant Teacher cannot be
considered by the DIOS and he has erred in law by passing the
impugned order.
6. I find no merit in the submission for the reason that the
appointment appears to have been made on account of fraud or
misrepresentation. Fraud or misrepresentation vitiates everything
and the consequences thereof can be looked into at any stage. I,
therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
Dt. 25.01.2010
AK3149/10