IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2541 of 2008. Decided on: 09.03.2009. Saroj Kumari. … … … Petitioner. Versus The Director of Primary Education and Another. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): The petitioner was appointed as J.B.T. teacher on 17th December, 1988. She joined her duties in Government Primary School, Saryanj, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (Block Dhundan). The services of the petitioner were terminated on 20th May, 1995. The petitioner has obtained J.B.T. certificate from Union Teacher’s Training Centre, Rajpura Town. Similarly situate persons Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - approached the learned H.P. State Administration Tribunal assailing their termination orders. Their main contention was that no notice was issued to them before terminating their services. The learned Tribunal quashed the termination orders. The State Government went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State to hold an inquiry whether the certificates issued by the Union Teacher’s Training Centre, Rajpur Town were fake or not. The inquiry was conducted by the State Government and it was found that the Union Teacher’s Training Centre, Rajpur Town was not recognised and the certificates issued by it were found to be fake. The petitioner has also obtained the certificate from Union Teacher’s Training Centre, Rajpura Town. The certificate obtained by the petitioner is not genuine. She could not seek employment on the basis of certificate which was not duly recognised. The appointment offered to the petitioner on the basis of this certificate was a nullity. In these circumstances, since the inquiry has already been conducted on the basis of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State Government, no notice was required to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted interim order by the learned Tribunal on 8th June, 1995. The same stands vacated. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, open to the State Government in own wisdom to recover the salary paid to the petitioner from 1988 onwards. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. March 09, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.