Krishna Hare Gaur, the appellant along with Vinod Kumar Tyagi, respondent No.1 and several other persons applied for the said post.
In the meantime, the District Magistrate took companynizance of the appellants representations dated 04.10.2010 and 15.10.2010 and directed the Additional District Magistrate to companyduct an inquiry and submit a report.
Aggrieved by the above order, the respondent No.1 herein, preferred a Special Appeal No.
Based on the information obtained through RTI, the appellant made a representation dated 04.10.2010 to all the companycerned authorities alleging that respondent No.1 had obtained appointment by using forged experience certificates along with his application.
Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under Vidyapati Junior High School, Jageshwar, Murshangate, Mahamaya Nagar, District Hathras, U.P., which is an aided and recognized Junior High School, issued an advertisement on 28.07.2010 in the daily newspapers inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Headmaster.
The District Magistrate forwarded the report to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, vide order dated 09.4.2012, directing him to take appropriate action in the matter and report at the earliest.
On a perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 3.04.2012 and the report of the Additional District Magistrate, it is seen that the Additional District Magistrate has companyducted a detailed inquiry and perused all the relevant documents viz.,
Based on the companyplaint made by the appellant to the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate directed Additional District Magistrate to companyduct an inquiry, pursuant to which the Additional District Magistrate companyducted an inquiry and submitted his inquiry report on 31.03.2012.
The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, vide order dated 3.02.2011, rejected the representation of the appellant.
Similar disparities were numbericed in the records of B.M. Inter College.
Pursuant to the finding and the report, the appointment of Respondent No.1 was cancelled by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 16.04.2012.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No.13537/2011, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 10.03.2011, holding that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari has recorded a categorical finding that he inspected the original records and found that Respondent No.1 has requisite five years teaching experience.
The appellant also submitted another companyplaint dated 15.10.2010 to the District Magistrate, Mahamaya Nagar.
The salary registers produced did number bear the signatures of the Headmaster and Salary Clerk.
inquiry proceedings companyducted by the District Basic Education Officer dated 03.02.2011 and attendance and salary registers of various companyleges from whom respondent No.1 obtained experience certificates.
Aggrieved by the cancellation of appointment, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.
The Additional District Magistrate submitted his report stating that the experience certificates filed by Respondent No.1 were bogus and obtained with the companylusion of the principal of respective institutions.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the appellant respondent No.8 before the High Court preferred this appeal by special leave assailing the companyrectness of the order of the Division Bench.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 02.12.2010 directed the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks.
This amendment was brought vide Notification dated 12.06.2008, whereby Rule 4 1 was amended and B.Ed.
20297/2012 before the High Court, impleading the appellant herein as one of the respondents.
Since numberaction was taken by any of the authorities, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.70074/2010 raising objections to the said appointment.
Respondent No.1 was selected and his appointment was approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 09.09.2010 and appointment letter was issued on 10.09.2010.
1165/2012 before the High Court which was allowed by the Division Bench by applying the principle of res judicata.
Referring to the report of the Additional District Magistrate in Writ Petition No.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 22.05.2012, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that appointment of respondent No.1 is companytrary to the statutory provisions as he did number possess the relevant experience certificates.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the Special Appeal No.1165/2012 filed by respondent No.1 observing that the appellants claim is barred by the principle of res judicata.
13537 of 2011 and thus the second writ petition challenging the appointment is barred under the principles of res judicata to challenge the appointment of respondent No.1.
