No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS SPA No.794 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. 3. Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no.6 through V.C. 4. This intra-court appeal is filed by writ- petitioner challenging judgment dated 20.08.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.648 of 2011. By the said judgment, his writ petition challenging termination of his service as Assistant Teacher, was dismissed by holding that his appointment was never approved by competent authority and appellant was appointed based on forged letter of approval. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that finding returned by learned Single Judge that the order of approval issued by District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) was forged, is erroneous and there was no material available before learned Single Judge based on which such finding could have been recorded. 1 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that vide order dated 19.04.1999 DBEO granted permission to advertise vacancies on two posts of Assistant Teacher (Maths and Science) and in the letter of permission, it was mentioned that one post shall be unreserved and one shall be reserved; the Manager of school issued an advertisement in terms of permission granted, which was published on 30.04.1999; since no candidate appeared for selection, therefore, Management again sought permission from DBEO to advertise vacancies; permission was again granted by DBEO vide letter dated 13.01.2000 and thereafter, vacancies were again advertised on 20.01.2000; appellant applied pursuant to advertisement and he appeared for interview before Selection Committee on 04.02.2000; Selection Committee recommended Rajendra Kumar Tamta for appointment against post reserved for Scheduled Caste category and appellant was recommended for appointment against unreserved post; based on recommendation of Selection Committee, Management of school sent proposal for appointing both the selected candidates, however, DBEO on 02.02.2001 granted approval only for appointing Rajendra Kumar Tamta; on 24.04.2001, Management again sent proposal for approval for appointing appellant and then thereafter, DBEO granted approval for appointing both the selected candidates vide order 2 dated 02.02.2001. 7. Thus, learned counsel for appellant submits that allegations of forged signature of DBEO on order of approval is baseless as order of approval was issued by him pursuant to request made by Management of school. 8. Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel appearing for Management of school and learned State Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 5, however, supported judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. 9. Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for Management of school submits that permission to advertise vacancies was given by DBEO to Management vide order dated 13.01.2000 in which it was mentioned that lone post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Maths) shall be filled by appointing a person belonging to other backward classes and other post of Assistant Teacher (General) was reserved for person belonging to Scheduled Caste. He further submits that since appellant had crossed upper age limit fixed for appointment as Assistant Teacher and the Director, Basic Education did not grant any relaxation to appellant for appointment, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment. He further submits that DBEO had granted approval for appointing Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tamta against vacancy reserved 3 for Scheduled Caste candidates. On, 24.04.2001, Management of school passed a resolution requesting DBEO to grant approval for appointing appellant, however, appellant manufactured letter of approval and on the strength of such forged letter of approval, the Manager issued order of appointment in favour of appellant on 23.01.2002. 10. Learned State Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that despite the conditions mentioned in the letter of permission issued by Competent Authority that vacancy of Assistant Teacher (Maths and Science) had to be filled by appointing a person belonging to Backward Classes, the Management recommended a person who belonged to General category for appointment against the said post, therefore, approval for appointment to appellant was denied by Competent Authority and approval was given only qua Rajendra Kumar Tamta. 11. Learned State Counsel further submits that District Basic Education Officer (DBEO), Nainital never granted approval for appointing appellant and document dated 02.02.2001 enclosed as Annexure No.6 to writ petition is a forged document. He submits that the then DBEO, Mr. Mukul Kumar Sati informed that the document enclosed as Annexure No.6 to writ petition does not bear his signature. 4 12. Since unequivocal stand of Committee of Management of the concerned school as well as the State Authorities is that the Competent Authority, who grant approval for appointment, refused to approve selection and appointment of appellant on the ground that he was recommended for appointment against a vacancy which was reserved for other Backward Classes and letter of approval dated 02.02.2001, on the strength of which appellant was appointed by Management was never issued by DBEO, Nanital, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to interfere with termination order passed against appellant. Whether the letter of approval dated 02.02.2001 contains signature of the then DBEO or not, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ petition. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dismissing the writ petition with which we concur. 13. Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned. Accordingly, Special Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.07.2025 SS 5