IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.215 of 2010 1. Uday Shankar Yadav S/O Munshi Yadav R/O Vill- Hajari Ke Tola, P.O- Khawaspur, Distt- Bhojpur, Presently Posted As Zila Parishad, Middle School Teacher, At High School Gorpa, Distt- Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur 4. The District Development Commissioner, Bhojpur 5. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur 6. In Charge Head Master of High School, Gorpa, Distt- Bhojpur ---------------------------------- 4 21.12.2011 From the pleadings in the writ application it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a trained Panchayat Teacher on the basis of a certificate of B.Ed examination held in 2005 by one V.B.S., Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. After he was appointed, the respondents decided to get his certificate verified from the said University. Hence, a letter was sent to the Registrar of the University at Jaunpur by the District Education Officer, vide his letter no.50 dated 10.06.2008, for verification of B.Ed. certificates of the petitioner and others. This letter of the District Education Officer is Annexure-4 with the writ application. Copy of the mark- 2 sheet of B.Ed examination, which petitioner had produced before the respondents at the time of his appointment, is at page 27 of the writ application. This certificate shows that Roll Number of the petitioner in the B.Ed course was ‘62951’ and he had passed the regular examination in 2005. However, the said letter of the District Education Officer dated 10.06.2008 shows that against his name ‘Roll No.603425’ was mentioned and his session was mentioned as 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the said Roll Number of the petitioner is of B.Com (Part-III) course which the petitioner had passed in 2003, copy whereof is at page 28 of the writ application. He submits that by mistake, for verification of the B.Ed degree of the petitioner, instead of mentioning the ‘Roll No.62951’ and the Session 2005 the ‘Roll No.603425’ and Session 2003 was mentioned by the District Education Officer in his letter. The result was that in the reply, the University reported that no such candidate had appeared in B.Ed course with that Roll Number. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the petitioner came to know about it, he submitted an application to the District Education Officer, vide Annexure-4/1, requesting him to get his correct certificate verified from the University. On this, a legal opinion was sought for by the D.D.C., Bhojpur, Ara from the Government Pleader who advised the authorities to get the certificate of the B.Ed examination of the petitioner verified again. However, instead of taking steps for fresh verification, petitioner’s salary was stopped and he was stopped from marking his attendance and his services have been terminated and order has also now been issued by the District Education Officer, contained in his letter no. 2414 dated 28.09.2011, by which petitioner has been directed to refund the entire amount paid to him towards his salary, failing which legal action has been directed to be initiated against him. He has also shown the original certificates of both the examinations and from perusal of which it appears that indeed the District Education Officer had committed 4 mistake in his letter dated 10.06.2008 when he required the B.Ed certificate of the petitioner to be verified by mentioning the Roll Number of B.Com course and the session. When it was pointed out to him that wrong Roll Number and Session was mentioned in the letter in respect of the petitioner, in all propriety he should have sent a fresh letter to the University with correct Roll Number and Session. Instead of doing that, the District Education Officer has mechanically passed orders for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner and recovery of the salary. The action of the District Education Officer was not justified. In the circumstances, the District Education Officer is directed to send a fresh request to the Registrar of the University at Jaunpur to verify the certificate of the petitioner of his B.Ed examination held in 2005 with ‘Roll NO.62951.’ This letter must be sent by the District Education Officer to the Registrar of the University at Jaunpur within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order through registered post 5 with A/D with a request that a reply of the same must be sent back to him within two weeks from the date of its receipt. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner produces a verification report issued by the Registrar of the University at Jaunpur dated 11.07.2011, from which it appears that he has certified that the petitioner bearing Roll No.62951 had appeared in the examination of B.Ed course in 2005 and had passed the examination in 1st Division. The petitioner is therefore directed to produce the said certificate also before the District Education Officer within two weeks along with a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the District Education Officer shall send a copy of the said certificate also along with his letter to the Registrar of the University at Jaunpur for certification of its issue by him. In view of this original certificate produced by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, this Court directs that the District Education Officer 6 shall keep his order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner in abeyance and shall issue orders for the petitioner to function in the school and mark his attendance and for payment of his current salary till any communication from the Registrar of the University at Jaunpur is received. If the communication of the Registrar is in favour of the petitioner, he shall be entitled to his entire arrears of salary. However, if the said communication does not support the petitioner, the order of the District Education Officer cancelling the appointment of petitioner will become operative and he will be liable to refund entire salary paid to him, besides any other legal action against him as the District Education Officer may consider appropriate. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)