Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78438 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6411 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt.Mamta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajkaran Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajkaran Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This Court has passed following order on 12.05.2025 :- "1. Let an inquiry be conducted how petitioner got the details of proceedings of selection as well as with regard to declaration made in para 9 of writ petition, which is reproduced hereinafter: "9. That after few months of the selection, the petitioner informed by the reliable sources that in the selection in question, the respondent no.5 was selected on the basis of experience certificate of two Schools namely Chhaya Public School as well as Heritage Academy, both institutions are recognized by the C.B.S.E. which was not valid experience certificate in term of Rule 4(2)(c) of the 1978 Rules and when this facts was came to the knowledge of the petitioner; she approached to the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad and made request to provide the papers relating to selection in question in which the respondent no.5 has been selected and after best effort made by her, the petitioner was obtained the copy of the selection proceedings which containing the marks awarded by the selection committee as well as experience certificate submitted by the respondent no.5 before the selection committee. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, the true copy of the experience certificate filed by respondent no.5, is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition." 2. The deponent of the affidavit accompanying to writ petition is not the petitioner. He has declared that he is Nandoi of petitioner and so far as declaration made in para 9 of writ petition is concerned, it is on basis of his personal knowledge. Deponent has not declared that source of such information is petitioner. The affidavit on face of it appears to be a fraud, therefore, it has to be dealt with very seriously. 3. In view of above, petitioner- Smt. Mamta wife of Ambrish Kumar, resident of House No. A-75, Jwalanagar, Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad as well as deponent of affidavit, Upendra Singh son of Mahendra Singh, resident of 656/1, Shakuntalam Awas Vikas Ke Vee School Anshik-2, Muzaffarnagar, shall remain present before this Court tomorrow at 10.00 AM. 4. The Court also makes it clear that being Court of record, if it is found that there is any fraud, contempt proceedings will be initiated against person concerned tomorrow itself, therefore, petitioner as well as deponent shall remain cautious while interacting with Court tomorrow. 5. Registrar General is directed to provide adequate security personnel in Court so that if required contempt proceedings be initiated tomorrow itself at 03.50 PM. 6. District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad shall also remain present tomorrow since there is a direct allegation against his office that confidential papers were provided to petitioner. 7. Put up tomorrow at 10.00 AM. " 3. In pursuance of above order, petitioner Smt. Mamta is not present though the deponent Upendra Singh is present in Court. An application for exemption from presence on behalf of petitioner is taken on record that she is unwell. 4. In pursuance of above order, Om Prakash Yadav, District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad is also present. 5. Sri Rajkaran Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that declaration made in affidavit, so far as in regard to paragraph No.9 is concerned it is based on record though the Court is not satisfied since source of it is not disclosed. The Court has interacted with deponent and he is not able to answer any question so much that he is not aware about contents of writ petition as well as he has not sworn affidavit before the Oath Commissioner. He is unaware of contents of above para and meaning of declarations made in the affidavit. 6. On face of it the affidavit accompanied with petition appears to be a fraud. 7. The deponent has filed a hand written apology which is pasted hereinafter :- 2 of 3 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is not initiating contempt proceedings, however, taking note that this writ petition is filed in a very casual manner. Petitioner and deponent careless, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10000/- each i.e. on petitioner as well as on deponent to be paid within three days in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Ghaziabad. 9. There is a request that petitioner be permitted to file a fresh writ petition, however, taking note of above referred circumstances, the liberty is rejected. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 P. Pandey 3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad