# Jai Prakash Dubey v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8878 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42098
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

U.P.
Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Recruitment and conditions of Service
of teachers and other condition Rules,
1975-Rules 9-Dismissal order-passed by
social welfare Officer-on ground the
appointment as Assistant Teacher in
primary school itself a forged and
fictitious document-appointment order
and joining before manger without
disclosing the selection list prepared
under Rule 9 itself illegal in absence of
approval by Basic Education OfficerPetition Dismissed-cost of Rs. 25000with direction to lodge F.I.R. Against
erring
officer
including
petitionerInvestigating Officer to submit progress
report before the Court.

Held: Para 11 and 12

This Court as long back as in Hari Lal
and others Vs. Director, Samaj Kalyan,
U.P. and others, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1407
has held that when appointment of a
teacher
has
not
been
made
in
accordance with procedure prescribed
in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules, the person
cannot be said to be a legally appointed
teacher in the school and, therefore, has
no right to hold the post or to claim
salary.

The
Director
has
found
that
in
administering petitioner's appointment
to be valid, the officials of Social
Welfare Department have also played
important role but he has stopped
thereat instead of recommending an
appropriate
criminal
proceedings
against
such
persons
who
have
committed such kind of forgery and
fraud.
Case law discussed:
2002(2) UPLBEC 1407

## Text

204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

to the Chief Secretary, Revenue State of
U.P, and the Chairman, Board of Revenue
at Lucknow and Allahabad for circulation
to all revenue courts and authorities for
necessary compliance.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8878 of 2012

Jai Prakash Dubey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Recruitment and conditions of Service
of teachers and other condition Rules,
1975-Rules 9-Dismissal order-passed by
social welfare Officer-on ground the
appointment as Assistant Teacher in
primary school itself a forged and
fictitious document-appointment order
and joining before manger without
disclosing the selection list prepared
under Rule 9 itself illegal in absence of
approval by Basic Education OfficerPetition Dismissed-cost of Rs. 25000with direction to lodge F.I.R. Against
erring
officer
including
petitionerInvestigating Officer to submit progress
report before the Court.

Held: Para 11 and 12

This Court as long back as in Hari Lal
and others Vs. Director, Samaj Kalyan,
U.P. and others, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1407
has held that when appointment of a
teacher
has
not
been
made
in
accordance with procedure prescribed
in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules, the person
cannot be said to be a legally appointed
teacher in the school and, therefore, has
no right to hold the post or to claim
salary.

The
Director
has
found
that
in
administering petitioner's appointment
to be valid, the officials of Social
Welfare Department have also played
important role but he has stopped
thereat instead of recommending an
appropriate
criminal
proceedings
against
such
persons
who
have
committed such kind of forgery and
fraud.
Case law discussed:
2002(2) UPLBEC 1407

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. Heard Sri R.N. Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner at length and
perused the record.

2. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 21.10.2011
passed by Director, Social Welfare
Department,
Government
of
U.P.
observing that appointment of petitioner
is founded on forged and fictitious
documents
and,
therefore,
his
appointment is void and illegal.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submitted that by letter of
appointment
dated
11.06.1984
the
Manager of Harijan Primary Pathshala
Bhedkul,
Sultanpur,
District
Mau
(hereinafter referred to as the "School")
appointed petitioner as Assistant Teacher
w.e.f. 11.06.1984 and pursuant thereto
petitioner joined on 12.06.1984. An
inquiry was also conducted whereafter
petitioner's appointment was not found
1 All] Jai Prakash Dubey V. State of U.P. and others

205
forged and fictitious, hence entire finding
recorded against petitioner is incorrect.

4. The question of validity of
petitioner's
appointment
has
been
examined by Director, Social Welfare
Department and in the impugned order it
has been discussed and observed that his
name never find mention in the list of
staffs approved while sanctioning grantin-aid and information in this regard was
given by Manager of the School through
Headmaster, Sri Dev Chandra Prasad but
he concealed relevant documents and
instead submitted forged and fictitious
documents in collusion with Social
Welfare Supervisor, Sri Ram and the
then
Social
Welfare
Officer,
Sri
Mukteshwar Chaubey. The Director has
held that petitioner's alleged appointment
illegal based on forged and fictitious
documents.

5. I do not find any substantial
reason to interfere with the aforesaid
findings of Director since it is not shown
to be perverse or contrary to record.

6. There are certain other aspect
which shows apparent forgery in the
matter relating to alleged appointment of
petitioner. Petitioner claims to have
passed High School in 1980 and
Intermediate in 1982 from G.M.A.M.
Inter College Benthera Road, Ballia. The
School in question is a Junior Primary
School recognised by Board of Basic
Education under the provisions of U.P.
Basic Education Act, 1972 and the Rules
framed thereunder. The School being a
privately managed School, for the
purpose of terms and conditions of
recruitment etc. of its teaching staffs, it
was governed by provisions of U.P.
Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment
& Conditions of Service of Teachers &
Other
Conditions)
Rules,
1975
(hereinafter referred to as the "1975
Rules"). Rule 9 thereof relates to
procedure
etc.
of
appointment
of
Teachers in Junior Primary School and
reads as under:

"9. No person shall be appointed as
teacher or other employee in any
recognised school unless he possesses
such qualifications as are specified in
this behalf by the Board and for whose
appointment the previous approval of
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been
obtained in writing. In case of vacancy
the applications for appointment shall be
invited by the concerned management
through advertisement in at least two
newspapers (one of them will be daily
newspaper), giving at least thirty days
time for submitting application. The date
of interview may be given in the
advertisement or the candidates be
informed of the date fixed for interview
by registered post, giving them at least
15 days time from the date of issue of the
letter. The management shall not select
any untrained teacher and if the selected
candidate is a trained one, he will be
approved
by
the
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari." (emphasis added)

7. It talks of advertisement of
vacancy in atleast two newspapers giving
atleast 30 days time for submitting
applications.
It
also
restrain
the
management
from
selecting
any
untrained teacher and required previous
approval of District Basic Education
Officer
in
writing
before
making
appointment. In the present case it it
nowhere the case of petitioner that the
aforesaid procedure was followed.
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

8. The Court finds his alleged letter
of appointment dated 11.06.1984 on
record at page 37 of the writ petition. It
is said to have been issued by Manager
and reads as under:

fu;qfDr vkns'k

izs"kd]

izcU/kd]

gfjtu fo|ky; Hks.Mkdqy&lqYrkuiqj

iksLV xft;kiqj tuin&vktex<+A

i=kad%

fnukad 11-6-84

lsok esa]

uke&Jh t; izdk'k nwcs

iq+= Jh eq[kjke nqcs

xzke&rwrhZikj

iksLV&rwrhZikj

tuin&cfy;kA

vkids vkosnu i= ij izcU/k lfefr HksMdqy
lqYrkuiqj iksLV xft;kiqj tuin vktex<+ lgk;d
v/;kid ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj&foe'kZ fd;k
vkSj loZlfEefr ls fu;qfDr lqfuf'pr dh xbZA
rn~uqlkj vkidh fu;qfDr fnukad 11-6-84 ls LFkk;h
lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij dh tkrh gSA

vr% vki lgk;d v/;kid HksMdqy lqYrkuiqj
iksLV xft;kiqj tuin&vktex<+ ds lEeq[k mifLFkfr
gksdj leLr izek.ki= voyksdu djkdj dk;ZHkkj xzg.k
djsaA
 izcU/kd
gfjtu fo|ky; HksMdqy lqYrkuiqj
iksLV&xft;kiqj
 tuin&vktex<+A
 g0 Hkxsyw izlkn dukSft;k
 11-6-84
 lhy&izcU/kd

9. It shows that an application was
received from petitioner and thereupon
immediately thereafter appointment letter
was issued. Interestingly the petitioner was
required to submit his joining by showing
all testimonials to an Assistant Teacher of
the School. From the very language used in
appointment letter it is evident that same is
a fictitious document. Moreover, it shows
petitioner's address at Village Tutipar,
District Ballia but interestingly enough
petitioner claims to have submitted joining
on the very next date, i.e., 12.06.1984 to the
Manager himself. It is not the case of
petitioner that there was no Headmaster in
the School and, therefore, why joining was
not given to Headmaster is not known.
Thereafter an experience certificate claims
to have been issued by Manager on
01.12.1996, i.e., after 12 years.

10. Petitioner admittedly did not
possess any training qualification. His
appointment was not made in accordance
with procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of 1975
Rules. It was thus evidently illegal void ab
initio.

11. This Court as long back as in Hari
Lal and others Vs. Director, Samaj Kalyan,
U.P. and others, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1407
has held that when appointment of a teacher
has not been made in accordance with
procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of 1975
Rules, the person cannot be said to be a
legally appointed teacher in the school and,
therefore, has no right to hold the post or to
claim salary.

12. The Director has found that in
administering petitioner's appointment to be
valid, the officials of Social Welfare
Department have also played important role
but he has stopped thereat instead of
recommending an appropriate criminal
proceedings against such persons who have
committed such kind of forgery and fraud.

13. I, therefore, direct the respondent
no. 2 to lodge a first information report
1 All] Sabhajeet Singh [P.I.L] Criminal V. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & others

207
against all concerned persons including
petitioner as well as the officials of
department whom he has found to have
acted in collusion to help the petitioner to
get his appointment validated by playing
fraud and misrepresentation and also
committing forgery in the documents. The
report shall be lodged by respondent no. 2
within 10 days from today. Thereafter the
concerned police authorities shall make
appropriate investigation in accordance with
law and submit progress report before this
Court after one month thereafter. Only for
this purpose this matter shall be listed
before this Court on 03.04.2012.

14. Subject to above directions, this
writ petition is dismissed with costs, which I
quantify to Rs. 25,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA,J.
THE HON'BLE D. K. UPADHYAYA,J.

Misc. Bench No. 11510 of 2011

Sabhajeet Singh [ P.I.L. ] Criminal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home &
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surya Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Sri Lalit Shukla
Sri O.P. Srivastava
Sri Manish Mathur

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest
Litigation-without
disclosing
credentials without description of public
cause going to expose-without fulfillment
of-provision
of
Allahabad
High
Court
(Amendment) Rules 2010, Chapter XXII
Rule 1 (3-A)-held-in absence of credible
locus-petition filed not in larger Public
Interest-needs dismissal.

Held: Para 14 and 15

In the light of aforesaid observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Balwant Singh Chaufal and others
(supra) and M/s Holicow Pictures Pvt Ltd
(supra), the Court opines that fulfillment of
the
requirement
of
the
amendment
inserted in the High Court Rules vide
notification dated 01.05.2010 should not
be taken lightly. Rules have been framed
for being adhered to. Any person filing
Public Interest Litigation has to satisfy the
Court that he has a credible locus and also
that he has filed the writ petition in larger
public interest. In the instant case, the
writ petition does not disclose even a
single word about the credentials of the
petitioner and his antecedents.

In view of above observations, the Court
comes to the irresistible conclusion that
for want of fulfillment of the requirement
of Allahabad High Court (Amendment)
Rules, 2010, the writ petition needs to be
dismissed.
Case law discussed:
2010 AIR SCW 1029; AIR 2008 Supreme Court
913

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.K.Upadhyaya,J.)

1. The instant writ petition styled as
Public Interest Litigation has been filed with
the following reliefs:-

"1. to issue a suitable order or
direction or writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties no. 1 to 6
to punish the opposite party no.7 and 8 and
initiate the criminal proceeding against him
in the light of the averments made in this
writ petition.