The Allahabad High Court has stayed the arrest of Assistant Teacher Anil Kumar Singh who was appointed on the basis of fabricated marksheet of B.Ed and has sought reply from the state government on the petition.
The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anil Kumar Singh.
By means of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 05.03.2020 lodged in Case under Sections- 417, 419, 420, 423, 467 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Rajghat, District- Gorakhpur.
Impugned FIR appears to have been lodged by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur against the petitioner (along with 36 others accused) alleging that petitioner obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Kuribazar, Vikas Khand, Belghat, District Gorakhpur on the basis of fabricated marksheet of B.Ed.
The Registrar of institute whereof petitioner submitted certificate for getting appointment has informed that no such student studied in his institution in B.Ed course. Hence service of the petitioner was terminated on 29.08.2019.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in aforesaid primary school on 04.08.2010 after due verification of his educational certificate of B.Ed., and after rendering about 10 years of service one, Raghunath Singh, made complaint to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and thereafter his marksheet / certificate was got verified from the institute, which had issued the same, but it has been alleged in the FIR, that it was reported by institute to be fabricated.
He has submitted that the institute has not sent the correct report to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner approached the court challenging his order of termination vide writ and the court quashed the impugned service termination order of petitioner dated 29.08.2019 on the ground that after receiving the said report from the institution, which informed that the petitioner has not studied in their institution, petitioner was never given opportunity to explain the same in accordance with principles of natural justice.
The Court found that the appointment was given to the petitioner on 04.08.2020 thereafter he continued to work as Assistant Teacher and suddenly a complaint was made by one, Raghunath Singh, by registered post stating that petitioner is working on the basis of fabricated educational certificate.
A report was called from the Registrar, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, Deemed University, Anantpur, Distirct- Prashanthinilayam-515134, Andhra Pradesh which was against the petitioner. Therefore it is clear that the appointment was given to the petitioner on 04.08.2010 without verification of his educational documents by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and his employees.
The Court observed that,
The court after hearing rival submissions, found that the government order dated 19.05.2021 relates to the period of spread of novel coronavirus and was not in existence on 04.08.2010, when the petitioner was given appointment. There is no explanation how the petitioner was appointed without verification of his B.Ed marksheet / certificate and he worked for about 10 years and only when a stranger made a complaint against him, departmental and criminal proceedings were initiated against him.
It appears that the appointment of petitioner, if the allegation in FIR is deemed to be correct, was given with active connivance of the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and his subordinate employees according to the rule. In the FIR this court does not find the name of any District Inspector of Schools of Gorakhpur or his subordinate employees in the column of accused who were employed at the relevant time.
Their roles in the appointment of petitioner and similarly situated 36 other accused is required to be investigated by investigating officers of police to bring out the correct facts as to how ineligible persons were given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in different primary schools. They were paid a salary from the state exchequer, despite being ineligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.
Role of the then District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and his subordinate employees, who were involved in the process of appointment of petitioner and other similarly situated employees implicated in the FIR, is required to be investigated by the investigating officer before submitting any report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C before the competent court.
The Court further found that the investigation in this case is pending since the year 2020 and not being concluded.
The Court has come across hundreds of such cases where initial appointments were given by the District Inspector of Schools without verification of credentials of the employees and after working for a number of years, their services were terminated and FIR’s were lodged alleging that they were appointed on the basis of fabricated documents by practising fraud. The role of departmental employees in granting such appointments is never investigated when such appointments cannot be given without collusion / connivance of the employees of the education department.
“In the meantime, the investigating officer of this case will file his personal affidavit before the court bringing on record investigation conducted by him regarding role of petitioner and role of the then District Inspector of Schools and his subordinate employees and any other employee of the department who was involved in the process of appointment of petitioner. The investigating officer will clearly bring on record before this court as to how the appointment of the petitioner and other accused employees was made without verification of their educational documents which were the basis of their qualification and eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to implement Secretary, Basic Education Department, Government of U.P, Lucknow as respondent no 5 in the petition within the course of day.
Newly implemented respondent no 5 shall also file counter affidavit within the same period explaining how appointment of petitioner along with similarly situated employees were made whose services were terminated by the department on the allegation of securing appointment on the basis of forged educational documents. The government order, policy and standard procedure for the process of joining in the department shall also be placed before this court and name and posts of the persons were / are responsible for issuing appointment letters to such candidates, without verification of their educational documents, shall also be brought on record.
The interim stay of arrest of petitioner will continue till the next date fixed”, the order reads.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on 24.09.2024.