Umesh Chandra Tiwari vs District Inspector of Schools, Ballia & Ors.

Dilip Gupta, J.

Writ petitionerappellant, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 17.03.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 5800 of 1997, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

According to writ petitionerappellant, the Committee of Management of Aadarsh Inter College, Siwan Kala in District Ballia resolved to appoint the writ petitionerappellant (hereinafter referred to as the ''''petitioner'') as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade against shortterm vacancy. The resolution of the Committee of Management was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the ''''DIOS'') on 25.01.1992 and he submitted his joining on 03.02.1992. According to petitioner, approval was accorded to his appointment by the DIOS by order dated 20.10.1994. However by order dated 28.09.1995, DIOS sought certain information and ultimately the petitioner was denied the salary. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition, which has given rise to the impugned order.

It was contended before the learned Judge that as the DIOS had granted approval by order dated 20.10.1994, there was no justification to deny the salary to the petitioner. Said contention has been rejected by the learned Judge, interalia, observing as follows:

"...several teachers were getting salary under forged or illegal orders hence comprehensive enquiry was made and thereupon it was found that petitioner was getting salary in an utterly illegal manner. Copy of the report regarding illegal payment to different teachers in different schools of District Ballia has been annexed as Annexure C.A.3. Petitioner''s name is at Sl. No.106. The list is quite alarming, it contains 274 names."

Ultimately, the learned Judge concluded as follows:

"The D.I.O.S. who passed the order on 20.10.1994 did not record any finding regarding compliance of First and Second Removal of Difficulties Orders.

Accordingly, a fraud had been played in which the D.I.O.S. who passed the order dated 20.10.1994 was equal partner."

Mr. Anil Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterated the same submissions, which have been raised before the learned Judge.

We are of the opinion that the learned Judge did not err in rejecting the submission and we concur with his view.

It has further been submitted that the petitioner has no hand in the fraud and, therefore, he cannot be deprived of his salary.

This submission has only been noted to be rejected. Undisputedly, petitioner is the beneficiary of fraud and, therefore, is not entitled to be given the salary only on the ground that he did not commit fraud. We are of the opinion that beneficiary''s role in fraud altogether cannot be ruled out.

We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.