AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps within a week.
The respondents are granted four weeks'' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks'', thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 28th February, 2012.
This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management of the college challenging the judgment of the Tribunal dated 2.2.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner was not served and was not informed about the judgment. The management acquired knowledge of the judgment from the letter of the District Inspector of Schools, for its compliance.
Shri Manish Goyal submits that Shri Moti-respondent no.2, was never appointed as peon in the college. He has filed Original Suit No. 611 of 1979, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2.12.2001. He had also filed Writ Petition No. 7734 (SS) of 2004 in which his representation was directed to be decided and which was dismissed by the DIOS as well as the Director.
Shri Goyal submits that the District Inspector of Schools, had filed a written statement in the Tribunal clearly denying in para 4 that Shri Moti, the claimant was appointed in the college. The appointment letter dated 26.6.1975 is forged in as much as the statement in the appointment letter that the petitioner was appointed on the retirement of Shri Vishun Deo, was not correct in as much as Shri Vishun Deo had retired on 31.5.2000 and not in the year 1975. From the judgment of the Tribunal we find that the Tribunal has not considered the denial in the written statement. It had treated the appointment of Shri Moti as peon to be an admitted fact and thereafter presumed the validity of appointment on the ground that he claimed stoppage of his salary, which according to the Tribunal means that he was validly appointed.
Prima facie we find that the Tribunal has not considered the defence taken by the DIOS as well as the documents filed on record and had wrongly assumed that the appointment was admitted, whereas from the beginning, in the suit filed by him and in deciding the representations, it was reported that the appointment letter was forged. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal dated 2.2.2011 in Claim No. 672 of 2007, Moti Lal v. State of U.P. shall remain stayed.