IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 319 of 2009 (S/S) Smt. Urmila Rawat W/o Sri Surendra Singh Rawat ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as an Aagan Bari Karyakarti on 16/11/1987. While she was working on this post, an advertisement for Mukhya Sevika was made inviting applications from those Aagan Bari Karyakarti who had a minimum experience of 10 years as on 31st July, 2003. The petitioner applied for the said post and gave an experience certificate dated 14/12/2005 issued by the Child Development Project Officer indicating therein that the petitioner was working as an Aagan Bari Karyakarti since 16/11/1987 onwards. It transpires that a select list was prepared and, on that basis, the petitioner was given an appointment on 2nd November, 2006 and, since then, the petitioner has been working as a Mukhya Sevika. It transpires that a complaint was made by one Smt. Damyanti Devi alleging that the petitioner has submitted a false experience certificate and, on that basis, a preliminary inquiry was made and, thereafter, a show cause notice dated 2nd May, 2008 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why her services should not be terminated for furnishing a false certificate. It was contended that the experience certificate indicated that she was 2 working as Aagan Wari Karyakarti on 01/10/1983 whereas she was found to be working w.e.f. from 16th November, 1987 and that on account of showing an extra experience of four years, she was wrongly awarded four extra points. The petitioner submitted a reply and submitted that she did not give an experience certificate indicating that she was working from 1983 but submitted an experience certificate showing that she was working since 1987. The petitioner further contended that the application form which she had filled up, contained 16 columns and not 8 columns and, therefore, there appears to be some interpolation in the record maintained by the respondents. It transpires that the respondents gave a personal hearing and was accosted with the original forms. The inquiry report indicates that she admitted her signature in the application form which was with the respondents and which contained eight columns. The Authority, after considering the matter found that the petitioner submitted a false certificate which resulted in giving her four extra points which led her to be appointed and had these four points were not given to her, the appointment would not have been given to her but would have been given to someone else, and for this fraud being played by the petitioner, the authority, by an order dated 20th March, 2009, passed an order of termination. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the application form that the petitioner had filled up contains 16 columns which was as per the advertisement, whereas, the application form before the respondent contained only 8 columns which could not have been accepted in the first place itself since it was not in accordance with the advertisement and further submitted that there appears to be an interpolation done in the office of the respondents in order to malign and harm the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has not done any interpolation or 3 forgery, and based on this argument, the original record was summoned and the learned Brief Holder today has produced the original record for perusal of the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was also shown the original record. The Court has also seen the original application form and finds that the said application has been signed by the petitioner herself. This observation of the Court is fortified by the admission made by the petitioner before the inquiry committee itself where she admitted that the signatures on the application form are hers. She also admitted that the person who had filled up the application form on her behalf was in the writing of Mr. Sudharshan Bist. In the light of the aforesaid, the contention of the petitioner that she had filled an application form containing 16 columns does not appear to be correct. On the other hand, nothing has been brought forward to show as to how the experience certificate indicating that she had worked from 1983 had come on record. The petitioner insisted that she had filed a certificate in which it was shown that she worked w.e.f. 16/11/1987 onwards. Without going into controversy as to how to experience certificate came into existence, the petitioner herself admits that she had worked from 16/11/1987. The respondents have filed the select list in which it was indicated that the petitioner was allocated 21 points for experience as Aagan Wari Karyakarti. Under the Rules, one point is added for every year of service beyond 10 years and, on that basis, the respondents added four marks for four years from 1983 to 1987. The respondents have filed the select list indicating that the petitioner was given 21 points for the years she had worked as an Aagan Wari Karyakarti and this calculation was made on the basis that she had worked from 01/10/1983. Since, admittedly, the petitioner had worked from 16/11/1987, four points were unnecessarily given and, therefore, the total points from 21 stands reduced to 17. The select 4 list indicates that four points were given for educational qualification and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to receive only 21 points instead of 25 points. The Court has seen the select list which has been as annexed annexure-4 to the counter affidavit and if 21 points are given to the petitioner, it would be clear that she would be last in the select list. The cut off marks in the general category was 25 points. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the respondents were justified in passing the order of termination. The petitioner has made further grievance that she was not being paid the wages of Mukhya Sevika from the time she was issued a show cause notice, i.e., May, 2008 till the date of the order of termination, i.e., 20th March, 2009. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that she had worked for this period as Mukhya Sevika and that she has not been paid the wages. The fact that the petitioner has worked and has not been paid wages is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit. The mere fact that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for the salary. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked during this period and, therefore, she is entitled for the salary for the period 2nd May, 1008 to 20th March, 2009. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of termination is affirmed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from 2nd May, 2008 to 20th March, 2009 within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 26.02.2010 Shiv