Firdousa Akther vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Syed Bashir-ud-din, J.—Petitioner alleges that she was appointed as a teacher by District Education Officer, Pulwama under order No.

DSF, 1344 dated 21.3.1990 (Annexure P-l) and has been working thereafter under Tehsil Education Officer, Pulwama. Though there is nothing

adverse against her, respondents are eager to discontinue her services. Having been appointed in the arrangement since 1990 and having worked

although, She has a right to continue under temporary Rules 1961. Besides she has been appointed against a clear vacancy and is so working since

28.3.90, therefore, as adhoc employee she is entitled to regularization under the Govt. order issued on 11.9.89. In the premises she is praying for

mandamus for regularisation of her service retrospectively and for continuance on the post as such teacher.

Respondents through Director School Education Kashmir has filed objections on affidavit. It is stated that petitioner has suppressed the true and

correct facts and the writ merits to be dismissed on that score. The appointment of petitioner is under fake and forged order. The large scale fake,

forged and fraudulent appointments particularly in Education Department in District Pulwama came to the notice of Government. A criminal case

was registered and appointments were verified and appointees wise too the Director School Education Kashmir verified the various appointments

after the concerned persons were asked to produce the appointment order (s) and relieving order etc. in original. However, on verification of

recruits of Zone Pulwama it concluded, ""Petitioner has managed fraudulent entry into the department by fake relieving order with the connivance of

some officials of the department. Consequently, FIRs were registered in respect of fake appointments in District Pulwama and enquiries were

initiated and in first instance 147 fake appointments in the Education Department in District Pulwama were found. The petitioner's name also figures

in the list of said fake appointments at S. No. 89 and the investigation was taken by the vigilance organisation in this behalf."" Besides appointment

order being fake and forged the appointment on its face is de hors the rules providing for recruitment/appointment to the post of teacher in the

Education Department. The entry of petitioner is nowhere stated or shown covered by any rule on the subject. As the petitioner's appointment is

de hors the rules, besides fraudulent, she cannot claim any benefit on the basis of this order, (may be of continuance of petitioner) under any rule or

order providing therefore. It is further averred that petitioner has at no point of time worked from 1990 in Zone Pulwama as a teacher and

averments made in the petition thereto are wholly wrong and untrue. Even she has not worked after 1995 as teacher as alleged by her.

It is evident that the appointment order appears fake and if so, then the appointment under such order itself is fraudulent. In any case the matter

is under investigation of the police. This apart, the appointment ex-facie is even de hors the rules. No prescribed procedure for

recruitment/appointment is followed in this case. Even petitioner has not stated so except to say that she has been appointed on the desire of

Director School Education, Kashmir. This desire has no meaning under law more so, when the desire is beyond recruitment rules and even in the

order the so called desire of the Director School Education referrers to some D.O. which is not mentioned in the order itself. It is also noticed that

annexure P-2 purportedly a photostat copy of the certificate issued by Headmaster Govt. School Kadipora Pulwama shows that petitioner has

worked in the school as teacher from 14.8.95 to 17.9.98. This is not even the case of petitioner when she states she has been working in the

Education Department since 1990.

In reply respondents have specifically refuted the genuineness of this certificate with the appointment order (Annexure P1 and P2). It is stated

that the annexed Photostat copies of the orders are not genuine and are in fact fake.

Petitioner's act of banking on Govt. Order No. 1320 GAD of 1989 dated 11.9.89 for regularisation is not of any help to her as the order on its

face applies to adhoc appointees to non-gazetted service recruited upto 29.12,1988, whereas petitioner as per her own case has been appointed

only in March 1990 and the genuineness of the order of appointment is seriously questioned and is averred in counter/reply as fake and forged.

In the above view of the matter petition is dismissed at the thresh hold without any case being made out for its admittance to hearing.