HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11692 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16th September 2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi on the ground that the petitioner has not been associated or afforded opportunity of hearing prior to passing the impugned order whereby the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 2016 in the Primary School, Nagla Sava, Block Aliganj, District Etah and after verification of document of the petitioner and 14 other teachers, the District Basic Education Officer directed the concerned officials for payment of salary on 31st of January 2017 and the arrears have been paid. He submitted that subsequently, the petitioner was allotted the Primary School Shahpur Nau, Block Shahabad, District, Hardoi on 22nd of October 2021 and he was discharging duties, but subsequently, the District Basic Education Officer being annoyed started certain enquiries on the managed complaint and passed the impugned order on 16th of September 2025 without giving opportunity of hearing to him. He argued that the petitioner was appointed under the quota of handicaps, and at the time of recruitment, he presented the certificate of 40% visual loss, and that has been verified. He submitted that the report was also called Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Devendra Kumar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) from CMO, Hardoi who subsequently referred the same to King George Medical University (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGMU') and a report was prepared wherein it is found that there is 40% visual loss of the petitioner and copy of the said report is appended at page 84 of the petition. Adding his arguments, he submitted that ignoring all these certificates and records, the District Basic Education Officer concerned proceeded in the matter and has come to the wrong conclusion that the petitioner has been appointed on forged certificate procured by him. He submitted that the order impugned dated 16th of September 2025 is arbitrary and is against the settled proposition of law and this is liable to quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the report of KGMU is forged one as the same was sent for verification to the authorities of KGMU and a report is sent therefrom that the same was not issued by the University concerned. He submitted that on the said report, the decision taken by the District Basic Education Officer is based upon and, therefore, there is no ambiguity or erroneousness in the same. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that vide the impugned order, the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2016 on the post of Assistant Teacher in Basic Education Department and thereafter, he was paid salary in the year 2017. The fact remains that at the time of recruitment, the certificate of eye impairment was issued by the CMO, District Etah and the same has been found genuine. Further the CMO, District Hardoi, after certain examination, referred the matter to the KGMU as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and once the report is submitted by the petitioner to the office of District Basic Education Officer, the genuineness was got examined while sending it to the office of KGMU and thereafter, it was found that the same is forged. When this Court examined the validity of the order dated 16th of September 2024, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the opportunity of hearing has not been accorded to the petitioner while passing the said order. The fact remains that the petitioner is kept on working for about last 10 years in the department and is getting salary. WRIA No. 11692 of 2025 2 Consequently, this Court finds that the order impugned is unlawful and, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. The District Basic Education Officer, Etah is directed to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders within a period of two months from the date of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. Further payment as well as arrears of salary to the petitioner shall be subject matter of final outcome of the enquiry. The petition is allowed accordingly. October 7, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 11692 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench