Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44652 (ALL)

LAL SINGH AND ANOTHER v. State of UP AND 4 OTHERS

SPLA/346/2024 · 2025-04-16

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56845-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 346 of 2024 Appellant :- Lal Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prasad Dubey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2024, passed in Writ-A No.12434 of 2018, after noticing the fact that investigation in respect of the TET certificates is going on at the level of Special Task Force and the result of the appellants is not uploaded on the website. Liberty is given to the petitioner-appellant to revive the claim in case any order is passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellants were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 2014. One of the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher was the existence of a TET certificate in favour of the teacher concerned. For such purposes, the appellants have placed reliance upon the TET certificate, allegedly issued in their favour. So far as the appellant, Lal Singh, is concerned, his certificate is on page no.52 of the paper book. The roll number allotted to Lal Singh is 11015020. This certificate also bears no. 3160571. Similarly, in respect of appellant Neetu Singh, the roll number is 11018780. The TET certificate has been issued on certificate number 3131014. 3. Admittedly, the TET examination of the concerned year 2011 was conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj. Specific instructions were called from the Madhyamik Siksha Parishad. The letter of the Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad dated 2.3.2025 has been placed before the Court, as per which roll number 11015020 allotted to appellant no.1 and roll number 11018780 allotted to the appellant no.2 are not available in the official records. No candidate with such roll number are shown to exist. The instructions further specify that certificate no.3160571, on which the TET certificate is allegedly issued to appellant no.1, was actually allotted to one Shiv Kumar, son of Nanhku Ram. This candidate had his roll number as 08024166. Similarly, the TET certificate no.3131014 allegedly issued to appellant no.2 was, in fact, issued to one Diwakar Kushwaha, son of Jhagru Singh. His roll number is 13012742. The communication of the Secretary is based upon a verification report signed by a team of three officers consisting of Assistant Secretary (Records) and Deputy Secretary (Records). The extract of the tabulation chart has also been annexed in support of such contentions. Copy of this instruction is handed over to the learned counsel for the appellants today in Court. The letter of the Secretary is also taken on record and is made part of the present appeal. 4. From the material placed on record, two things are apparent: firstly that the roll numbers relied upon by the appellants do not exist in the available records of the Court and; secondly certificate number on which the TET certificate is issued to the appellant has been issued to someone else. The documents placed on record, therefore, clearly prove that the TET certificates relied upon by the appellants are fabricated. Once that be so, we find no occasion to interfere in the present appeal with the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge. 5. The special appeal is dismissed. 6. So far as the ongoing criminal investigation is concerned, the matter is pending and may take sufficiently long. Merely because criminal investigation is pending, we cannot pass any orders allowing the appellants to work and receive salary, particularly, when the documents available supports the respondent's version that the appointment of appellants is obtained by fraud. Learned Single Judge has otherwise given the liberty to revive the claim in the event some orders are ultimately passed by the competent Court, taking a different view from what is noticed above. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad