# Reena Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 962
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18163 of 2019
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reena-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45301
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.Challenging-impugned order-cancellingappointment-from
the
post
of
Asst.
Teacher-on
the
ground-appointment
obtained-on
the
basis
of-forged
&
fabricated
T.E.T
marksheet/certificate-if
inducted on this basis-becomes beneficiary
of illegal & fraudulent appointment-hence
void ab initio-cancellation lawful.

B. Held, that the forgery committed by the
petitioner, for obtaining public employment on
the
basis
of
forged
TET
Examination
marksheet/certificate; is in the basic eligibility
conditions for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher. Therefore, it vitiates the
process
of
her
appointment.
Thus,
the
appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio
and she cannot be said to be a government
servant. Therefore, her appointment has been
lawfully cancelled by the impugned order.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the subject which was being taught by the
teacher whose vacancy is to be fulfilled".

26. It is thus clear that the Committee of
Management is entitled to promote/appoint
such teacher to the vacancy caused in L.T.
grade who is required to teach the subject
which the Committee of Management thinks
necessary in the interest of the institution. The
decision was followed by the subsequent
Division Bench in Pati Ram Pal Vs. District
Inspector of Schools and others.

27. On specific query, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the Board do not dispute that the sixth
respondent has the requisite experience for
the post of assistant teacher, the only plea
being raised that since he was B.Sc.
(Agriculture), therefore, he could not have
been appointed against the vacancy of
assistant teacher (Science), lacks merit.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioner
failed to show any provision of Act, 1921
or the Regulations and Rules framed
thereunder that there is any embargo upon
the Committee of the Institution for not
making appointment for assistant teachers
in other streams.

29. Accordingly:

(i) Writ Petition No.14490 of
2018 (Dr. Digvijay Nath Tiwari Vs. State
of U.P. and others), is dismissed.

(ii) Writ Petition No.36446 of 2017
(Ajay Kumar Sahi Vs. State of U.P. and
others), is allowed. Impugned order dated 24
March 2017 passed by the Board and
consequential orders are set aside and quashed.

30. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)1ILR 962

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No. 18163 of 2019

Reena Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Shanker Tripathi, Sri Vijay Shanker Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh

A.Challenging-impugned order-cancellingappointment-from
the
post
of
Asst.
Teacher-on
the
ground-appointment
obtained-on
the
basis
of-forged
&
fabricated
T.E.T
marksheet/certificate-if
inducted on this basis-becomes beneficiary
of illegal & fraudulent appointment-hence
void ab initio-cancellation lawful.

B. Held, that the forgery committed by the
petitioner, for obtaining public employment on
the
basis
of
forged
TET
Examination
marksheet/certificate; is in the basic eligibility
conditions for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher. Therefore, it vitiates the
process
of
her
appointment.
Thus,
the
appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio
and she cannot be said to be a government
servant. Therefore, her appointment has been
lawfully cancelled by the impugned order.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

1. Union of India & Anr. v. Raghuwar Pal Singh,
(2018) 15 SCC 463

2. Nidhi Kaim & Anr. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 1
1 All. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
3. Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira & Ors.(2017) 8 SCC 670

4. R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala,
(2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 350]

5. Union of India v. Dattatray, (2008) 4 SCC
612 :(2008) 2 SCC (L&S)

6. Rita Mishra & Ors. v. Director, Primary
Education, Bihar & Ors. AIR 1988 Patna 26

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Keasrwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

2. Cancellation of appointment of
the Petitioner Assistant Teacher for
appointment obtained by her on the
basis of forged and fabricated T.E.T.
marksheet/certificate, is the controversy
involved in the present writ petition.

3. On 02.12.2019, this Court passed
the following order:-

"Case called out.

Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned
standing counsel has filed a counter
affidavit dated 2.12.2019 on behalf of the
respondent no. 5 which is taken on record.

In paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit, the respondent no. 5 has stated
as under:-

"That
the
petitioner
has
appeared in TET Examination 2014 with
Roll No. 0510201832 and the same was
produced before the counseling members
and got an appointment as Assistant
Teacher in the aforesaid college thereafter
after examining by the District Basic
Education
Officer,
Kannauj
to
the
aforesaid certificate of the petitioner on
the
uploaded
website
of
result
of
U.P.T.E.T.
Examination
2014.
The
aforesaid certificate submitted by the
petitioner was found forged as such vide
letter dated 23.10.2019 the services of the
petitioner - Smt. Reena Devi as Assistant
Teacher has been terminated under the
Government
order
issued
by
the
Government. It is further stated that after
scrutinizing the Roll No. 0510201832 in
the available records, on the aforesaid
Roll number the name was shown as Km.
Anita daughter
of
Sri Krishna
is
mentioned and Km. Anita has not found
qualifying marks which is shown in OBC
category and she has also obtained only
82 marks out of 150 as such the marks is
very low and which is shown in the list
which was uploaded on the website of
T.E.T. Examination 2014, as unsuccess.
The photo copy of the uploaded the select
list of U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2014 is
being filed as Annexure No. C.A.-1 to this
affidavit. As such on the basis of the
aforesaid facts no certificate has been
issued under under the provisions of
Government
Order
issued
by
the
Government in this regard. Hence the
present writ petition filed by the petitioner
is not maintainable."

Two days time is granted to the
learned counsel for the petitioner to file a
rejoinder affidavit.

Since none has appeared on
behalf of the petitioner even in the revised
call, therefore, learned standing counsel is
directed to communicate this order in
writing to the learned counsel for the
petitioner within 24 hours.

Put up this matter on 5.12.2019
in the additional cause list."

4. Today, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that he tried to contact the
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner but the petitioner is not
responding and it appears that she does not
wish to file a rejoinder affidavit.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the
contents of paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit as reproduced in the aforequoted
order dated 02.12.2019, is deemed to be
correct.

6. Undisputedly, in terms of the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981,
N.C.T.E. Act, N.C.T.E. Regulations, 2001,
the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act 2009 and the
Rules
framed
thereunder
and
the
Notification issued under Section 23(1) of
the N.C.T.E. Act, one of the essential
qualifications for appointment of Assistant
Teacher is that the candidate must have
passed Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
Thus,
TET
is
the
eligibility
for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher.
The
petitioner
secured
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher vide appointment order dated
03.09.2016 issued by the District Basic
Education Officer, Firozabad. She joined
in Junior Basic School Ahirua Rajarampur,
Vikas
Khand
Chibramau,
District
-
Kannauj on 24.09.2016. On verification
her TET marksheet/certificate was found
to be forged by the District Basic
Education
Officer
who
consequently
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
23.10.2019 cancelling the appointment
order of the petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the
appointment obtained by the petitioner
on the basis of a forged and fabricated
TET marksheet/certificate has been
rightly cancelled by the respondent
no.4. It is settled law that fraud and justice
never dwell together. Cancellation of
appointment of the petitioner on account
of
forged
and
fabricated
TET
marksheet/certificate is wholly justified
under the facts and circumstances of the
case and requires no interference by this
Court.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union
of India & Anr. v. Raghuwar Pal Singh,
(2018) 15 SCC 463 had examined a case,
where the appointment letter was issued
without
approval
of
the
competent
authority. The question arose whether such
appointment letter would be a case of
nullity or a mere irregularity? In case of
nullity, affording opportunity to the
incumbent would be a mere formality
and non-grant of opportunity may not
vitiate the final decision of termination
of his services. Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that in absence of prior approval of
the competent authority, the Director
Incharge could not have hastened issuance
of the appointment letter. The act of
commission and omission of the Director
Incharge would, therefore, suffer from the
vice of lack of authority and nullity in law.

9. In Nidhi Kaim & Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC
1, a three Judge Bench was dealing with
admission of students to MBBS Course on
the basis of illegal and unfair admission
process. The Court held as under:

"92.
...Having
given
our
thoughtful consideration to the above
submission, we are of the considered view
that conferring rights or benefits on the
appellants,
who
had
consciously
participated in a well thought out, and
meticulously
orchestrated
plan,
to
circumvent well laid down norms, for
gaining admission to the MBBS course,
1 All. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965
would amount to espousing the cause of
"the unfair". It would seem like allowing a
thief to retain the stolen property. It would
seem as if the Court was not supportive of
the cause of those who had adopted and
followed rightful means. Such a course
would cause people to question the
credibility of the justice-delivery system
itself. The exercise of jurisdiction in the
manner suggested on behalf of the
appellants would surely depict the Court's
support in favour of the sacrilegious. It
would also compromise the integrity of the
academic community. We are of the view
that in the name of doing complete justice
it is not possible for this Court to support
the vitiated actions of the appellants
through which they gained admission to
the MBBS course.

xx xx xx

94. ...Even in situations where a
juvenile indulges in crime, he has to face
trial, and is subjected to the postulated
statutory
consequences.
Law,
has
consequences. And the consequences of
law brook no exception. The appellants in
this case, irrespective of their age, were
conscious of the regular process of
admission. They breached the same by
devious means. They must therefore, suffer
the consequences of their actions. It is not
the first time that admissions obtained by
deceitful means would be cancelled. This
Court has consistently annulled academic
gains arising out of wrongful admissions.
Acceptance of the prayer made by the
appellants on the parameter suggested by
them would result in overlooking the large
number of judgments on the point.
Adoption of a different course, for the
appellants, would trivialise the declared
legal position. Reference in this behalf
may be made to the judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel representing
Vyapam.

xx
xx
xx
xx

xx

108.
...In
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case in hand, it would
not be proper to legitimise the admission
of the appellants to the MBBS course in
exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this
Court
under
Article
142
of
the
Constitution. We, therefore, hereby decline
the above prayer made on behalf of the
appellants."

43) In another three Judge
Bench
judgment
in
Chairman
and
Managing Director, Food Corporation of
India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira &
Ors.(2017) 8 SCC 670, the Court was
examining the consequences of false caste
certificate produced to seek appointment.
The Court held as under:

"69. For these reasons, we hold
and declare that:

xx

 xx
xx

69.3. The decisions of this Court
in R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala,
(2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 350]
and in Union of India v. Dattatray, (2008)
4 SCC 612 :(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6, which
were rendered by Benches of three Judges
laid down the principle of law that where
a benefit is secured by an individual-such
as an appointment to a post or admission
to an educational institution--on the basis
that the candidate belongs to a reserved
category for which the benefit is reserved,
the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim
upon verification would result in the
appointment or, as the case may be, the
admission being rendered void or non est.

xx
xx

 xx

69.7. Withdrawal of benefits
secured on the basis of a caste claim
which has been found to be false and is
invalidated is a necessary consequence
which flows from the invalidation of the
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity
would arise;"
(Emphasis supplied by me)

10. A Full Bench of the Hon'ble
Patna High Court in the case of Rita
Mishra & Ors. v. Director, Primary
Education, Bihar & Ors. AIR 1988
Patna 26 has dealt with appointment in
the education department claiming
salary
although
the
letter
of
appointment was forged, fraudulent or
illegal. The Full Bench declined to grant
such claim and held that "the right to
salary stricto sensu springs from a legal
right to validly hold the post for which
salary
is
claimed.
It
is
a
right
consequential to a valid appointment to
such post. Therefore, where the very root
is non-existent, there cannot subsist a
branch thereof in the shape of a claim to
salary. The rights to salary, pension and
other
service
benefits
are
entirely
statutory in nature in public service.
Therefore, these rights, including the
right to salary, spring from a valid and
legal appointment to the post. Once it is
found that the very appointment is illegal
and is non est in the eye of law, no
statutory
entitlement
for
salary
or
consequential rights of pension and other
monetary benefits can arise."

11. The aforesaid judgment of Full
Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in
the case of Rita Mishra (supra) was
approved by a three Judges Bench of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
R.
Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
& Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105.

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court by three
Judge Bench in the State Of Bihar Vs.
Kirti Narayan Prasad, decided on 30
November 2018, 2019 (1) ESC 3
considered the matter of appointments
made on the basis of forged appointment
letter and held as under:

"17. In the instant cases the writ
petitioners have filed the petitions before the
High Court with a specific prayer to regularize
their service and to set aside the order of
termination of their services. They have also
challenged the report submitted by the State
Committee. The real controversy is whether
the writ petitioners were legally and validly
appointed. The finding of the State Committee
is that many writ petitioners had secured
appointment by producing fake or forged
appointment letter or had been inducted in
Government
service
surreptitiously
by
concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer by issuing a posting order. The writ
petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal
orders made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer. They were given notice to
establish the genuineness of their appointment
and to show cause. None of them could
establish the genuineness or legality of their
appointment before the State Committee. The
State Committee on appreciation of the
materials on record has opined that their
appointment was illegal and void ab initio.We
do not find any ground to disagree with the
finding of the State Committee. In the
circumstances, the question of regularisation
of their services by invoking para 53 of the
judgment in Umadevi (supra) does not arise.
Since the appointment of the petitioners is ab
initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil
servants of the State. Therefore, holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged byArticle
311of the Constitution or under any other
disciplinary rules shall not arise."

13. The aforesaid judgment in the
case of the State Of Bihar Vs. Kirti
Narayan Prasad has been followed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State Of
1 All. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967
Bihar Vs. Devendra Sharma, 2019 AIR
1158 (S.C.). In the case of Devendra
Sharma (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
also considered fraudulently obtained
appointments and held as under:-

"19) The cases in the second
category i.e. appointment on the basis of
forged nursing registration stands on the
same footing as category one though it is
argued by the appellants in three appeals
that nursing registration certificate is not
forged but the matriculation certificate on
the basis of which the candidates have
undergone Auxiliary Nurse Mid-Wife, (for
short 'ANM') course was found to be
forged. The State Committee has found
that
ANM
certificate
is
a
forged
certificate. Even if, the certificate of ANM
is not forged as argued before this Court
but the Matriculation Certificate is said to
be forged, the fact is that the educational
qualification,
a
pre-condition
for
undergoing nursing course, was found to
be forged. Therefore, the forgery is in the
basic eligibility condition to undertake
ANM course, which will vitiate the
process of appointment. For the reasons
recorded in Kirti Narayan Prasad, Civil
Appeal Nos. 7906 of 2019, 7919 of 2019
and 7920 of 2019 are dismissed.

20) Coming to third category of
cases, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for
the
State
referred
to
the
separate
Government Circulars dated December 3,
1980 in respect of Class III and Class IV
category posts. It is contended that
appointments on such circulars have
been found to be illegal by this Court in
Ashwani Kumar, which view was in fact,
approved later by Constitution Bench
judgment in Uma Devi, wherein this Court
held as under:

"33. It is not necessary to notice
all the decisions of this Court on this
aspect. By and large what emerges is that
regular recruitment should be insisted
upon, only in a contingency can an ad hoc
appointment be made in a permanent
vacancy, but the same should soon be
followed by a regular recruitment and that
appointments to non- available posts
should
not
be
taken
note
of
for
regularisation.
The
cases
directing
regularisation have mainly proceeded on
the basis that having permitted the
employee to work for some period, he
should be absorbed, without really laying
down any law to that effect, after
discussing the constitutional scheme for
public employment.

xx xx xx

53. One aspect needs to be
clarified. There may be cases where
irregular
appointments
(not
illegal
appointments)
as
explained
in
S.V.
Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR
1967 SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa
[(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799]
and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 :
1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937]
and referred to in para 15 above, of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for
ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation
of the services of such employees may
have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court
in the cases above-referred to and in the
light
of
this
judgment................"
(Emphasis Supplied)

21) In Uma Devi, the argument
that
the
employees
have
legitimate
expectations was negated when this Court
held as under:

"46. .............. The doctrine can
be invoked if the decisions of the
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
administrative authority affect the person
by depriving him of some benefit or
advantage which either (i) he had in the
past been permitted by the decision-maker
to enjoy and which he can legitimately
expect to be permitted to continue to do
until there have been communicated to him
some rational grounds for withdrawing it
on which he has been given an opportunity
to comment; or (ii) he has received
assurance from the decision-maker that
they will not be withdrawn without giving
him first an opportunity of advancing
reasons for contending that they should
not be withdrawn... There is no case that
any
assurance
was
given
by
the
Government or the department concerned
while making the appointment on daily
wages that the status conferred on him will
not be withdrawn until some rational
reason
comes
into
existence
for
withdrawing it. The very engagement was
against the constitutional scheme. Though,
the Commissioner of the Commercial
Taxes Department sought to get the
appointments made permanent, there is no
case that at the time of appointment any
promise was held out. No such promise
could also have been held out in view of
the circulars and directives issued by the
Government
after
Dharwad
decision
[(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274
: (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] .
Though, there is a case that the State had
made regularisations in the past of
similarly situated employees, the fact
remains that such regularisations were
done only pursuant to judicial directions,
either of the Administrative Tribunal or of
the High Court and in some cases by this
Court....

47. When a person enters a
temporary
employment
or
gets
engagement as a contractual or casual
worker and the engagement is not based
on a proper selection as recognised by the
relevant rules or procedure, he is aware
of the consequences of the appointment
being temporary, casual or contractual in
nature. Such a person cannot invoke the
theory of legitimate expectation for being
confirmed
in
the
post
when
an
appointment to the post could be made
only by following a proper procedure for
selection and in cases concerned, in
consultation with the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, the theory of
legitimate
expectation
cannot
be
successfully
advanced
by
temporary,
contractual or casual employees...."

14. Thus, where a person secures
appointment on the basis of a forged
marksheet or certificate or appointment
letter and on that basis he or she has been
inducted in Government service then he
becomes
beneficiary
of
illegal
and
fraudulent
appointment.
Such
an
appointment is illegal and void ab initio.
Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings
envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution
of India or under any disciplinary rules
including
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Disciplin
and Appeal) Rules 1999, shall not arise.

15. The forgery committed by the
petitioner,
for
obtaining
public
employment on the basis of forged TET
Examination marksheet/certificate; is in
the basic eligibility conditions for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher. Therefore, it vitiates the
process of her appointment. Thus, the
appointment of the petitioner is void ab
initio and she can not be said to be a
government servant. Therefore, her
appointment
has
been
lawfully
cancelled by the impugned order.
1 All. Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
969

16. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any error of law in the
impugned order dated 23.10.2019, which
has been passed by the respondent no.4
after affording opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition
is dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 969

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No. 18346 of 2019

Manish Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashish Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shashi Kant Verma

A.
Challenging-impugned
ordertransferring/adjusting
petitionerstreating
them
to
be
surplus-policy
decision-contained in G.O-adjustment of
teachers-made on the basis if actual
number of students-against total number
of students enrolled-impugned order-in
conformity with G.O dt. 17.06.2019.

B. Held, in making transfer/adjustment in
terms
of
the
policy
decision
dt
17.06.2019, the authorities have adopted
uniform method. No specific perversity
could be pointed out by the petitioners in
the list of students and teachers prepared
by the District basic Education Officer,
filed as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ
Petition
which
is
not
even
under
challenge in the present writ petition. The
impugned transfer/adjustment orders are
merely
consequential
to
the
above.
Therefore, it cannot be interfered with.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Keasrwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shyam
Sundar, learned standing counsel for the
State respondents and Sri Shashi Kant
Verma, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 3 & 4.

Facts:

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"(a) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
15.7.2019 (Vide Annexure No. 6 of the writ
petition)
passed
by
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari, Sonbhadra i.e. respondent no. 4
adjusting / transferring the petitioners
treating them to be surplus.

(b) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
6.11.2019 (Vide Annexure No. 8 of the writ
petition) by which the representation has
been rejected by the District Level
Committee, adjusting / transferring the
petitioners treating them to be surplus.

(c) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to interfere
with the peaceful functioning of the
petitioners working as Assistant Teacher /
Head Teacher."

3. By the impugned order dated
6.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3,
the representation of the petitioners against