IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1275 of 2001 Mohammad Shamim and others ….Petitioners Versus Director of Education (Basic), Directorate, U.P., Allahabad and others ….Respondents. Present : Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 3.5.2010. Now a restoration application has been filed by the petitioner along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. 2. Grounds shown in the delay condonation application (CLMA No. 3071 of 2011) seem to be bona fide. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 3. Grounds urged in the restoration application (MCC No. 256 of 2011) appear to be bona fide. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 3.5.2010 passed by this Court is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. 4. Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand on merits. 2 5. The petitioners were untrained Urdu Teachers appointed in the year 1985. Under a scheme in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioners were sent for a Special Basic Training Certificate (i.e. B.T.C.) course which was for two years. The petitioners successfully completed the first year of training in the year 1991 but in the second year i.e. in the year 1992, they failed to qualify the examination. All the same, due to manipulation and fraud played by the petitioners in connivance with the concerned authorities, the petitioners procured the qualifying marksheet and consequently thereafter continued to get the trained scale of Assistant Teacher of Primary School. Consequently, when it was revealed that the petitioners had obtained the marksheet by deceit and fraud, the trained scale was withdrawn from the petitioners by order dated 1.3.1994, which was challenged by the petitioners in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by means of a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 13887 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court on 19.3.1994 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. Subsequently thereafter the petitioners moved a representation which was decided by the Basic Education Officer, Dehradun vide order dated 1.11.1994. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 11876 of 1997 challenging the order dated 1.11.1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 7.4.1997, which is quoted below :- “This writ petition is directed against an order dated 1-11-94 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Dehradun, disallowing the representation of the 3 petitioners for the scale of a trained teacher. The scale was prayed for on the ground that they have passed the training examination and had produced certain mark-sheets in proof of passing the examination. The order dated 1.11.94 makes it clear that the marksheets were verified through the Registrar of Departmental Examination and he had declared the marksheets not to have issued by his office at all. The order was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 1.11.94 and the writ petition is being filed only in April, 1997. For all these reasons, the writ petition may not be entertained and is therefore dismissed. However, if the Rules do not stand on the way the petitioners may be allowed to appear in the next examination likely to commence on 22.4.97. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners a copy of the present order may be made over to him within three days subject to proper application.” 6. Consequently, the petitioners appeared in the year 1997 examination, although the result of this examination was not declared. Thereafter the petitioners filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 18986 of 1999, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court by the following orders :- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. It appears that in pursuance of the order dated 7.4.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 13887/94, the petitioner appeared in BTC, partly examination, 1997 Correspondence Course, but the result of the same has not been declared so far inspite of the representation of the petitioner. It appears that the Director of Education, Basic Head Quarter, Allahabad vide his order dated 14.10.1998 requested the Addl. Director to declare the result and copy of the same was also sent to the Registrar, Department Examinations, but still the result has not been declared. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the Registrar, Departmental Examination, U.P., Allahabad to consider and dispose of the grievance of the petitioner raised by 4 the petitioner through his representation dated 6.10.98 and 20.12.1998 within six weeks from the date of production of copy of this order before him alongwith copy of representation. The order should be passed giving reasons. Copy of this order be given within four days on payment of usual charges.” 7. Consequently thereafter the representation of the petitioners was decided by the Registrar, Departmental Examination, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad by order dated 29.6.1999 stating that as per the rules the petitioners could not have been allowed to appear in 1997 examination and the very appearance of the petitioners in 1997 examination is dehors the rules and moreover no permission was taken by the petitioners/concerned authority to appear in the examination. Hence the order was passed cancelling the result of the petitioners for the year 1997. 8. The petitioners had challenged the order dated 29.6.1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by means of the present writ petition, which stood transferred to this Court in view of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. 9. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. On the basis of the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as on the basis of the arguments of the counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Yadav and State Counsel Mr. N.P. Sah, this Court is of the view that the petitioners had first of all procured a marksheet by unfair means and on the basis of that forged marksheet, succeeded in getting the trained scale. Such an act on the part of the petitioners who are teachers cannot be condoned. The prayer of the petitioners to 5 declare the result of the examination cannot be accepted, as the very appearance of the petitioners in the said examination was in violation of law. In other words, the Rules neither permit the petitioners to appear in the examination nor was proper permission given to the petitioners for appearing in the examination. 10. Writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 9.11.2011 Avneet