The Allahabad High Court has ordered the management of a school in the state to renew the contract of a Teacher-com-Warden, whose services were not considered for renewal on the ground that the marksheet, on the basis on which the initial appointment was granted, was forged.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia on Wednesday passed this order, while hearing a Writ Petition filed by Archana Tyagi, seeking quashing of the order dated January 15, 2021, passed by the Respondents not considering her contract renewal.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of a scheme of Government of India namely ‘Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya’ of 2004, which was subsequently merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Programme, the petitioner, being eligible, applied for an appointment and was selected as Warden-cum-Teacher (Hindi). Her appointment was on contractual basis and her contract was renewed from time-to-time.
It was further stated that the petitioner was served with a showcause notice on December 23, 2020, wherein it was indicated that the marksheet submitted for BA Degree showed 631 marks, whereas the marksheet made available showed 621 marks, a difference of 10 points.
The petitioner was asked to explain the difference, failing which, the showcause notice said, it would be presumed that she has nothing to say.
The petitioner said she had passed BA IIIrd year examination from the University, wherein total marks obtained by her were shown as 631. The said marksheet, which is on record, indicates that the petitioner obtained 191 marks out of 300 in Part III Examination and 430 marks in Part I and Part II Examination out of 700 and the total amounts to 631 marks, as indicated in the mark sheet.
The petitioner moved an application before the University highlighting the error in the calculation. The University issued a letter to the petitioner on January 12, 2021, wherein they accepted their mistake. A duplicate mark sheet was issued to the petitioner, showing 621 out of total 1000 marks.
Once the University has accepted the error on their part, there appears to be no justification in holding that the petitioner had erred or committed any wrong in obtaining recruitment upon the said marksheet wrongly, the Court said.
The Counsel for the petitioner said that this fact was brought to the knowledge of the respective authority, however, the same has not been considered in the order dated January 15, 2021.
“After hearing the parties, who are present, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending as the error has crept in the marksheet because of the University and not because of the Petitioner and this aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.
“Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated January 15, 2021, in so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondents to pass a fresh order, after taking into consideration the duplicate marksheet issued by the petitioner, as well as the letter of the University accepting their mistake vide letter dated January 12, 2021.
“The respondents shall give the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, permitting her to place reliance on whatever document she deems fit in support of her contention. The exercise shall be completed by the Respondents as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a copy of this order. Consequently, steps for considering the renewal of the contractual appointment shall also be considered”, the Court ordered.