LexDISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB versus MRITUNJOY DAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 546 . - \o- A DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB v. tJIRITUNJOY DAS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6007 of 2011) • • B JULY 27, 2011 .. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Service law - Dismissal from service - Appointment! c selection of respondents as Assistant teacher in Primary Schools - Respondents as a pre-requisite had taken admission in the training course for obtaining Primary Teachers' Training Institute Certificate to get appointment as '-- Assistant Teacher - However, subsequently, the School ~ .( D Council found that the admission in the training course was .. obtained by inflating their marks - Respondents dismissed from service - Writ petitions by the respondents - Dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court- However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal - On appeal, E held: If a particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order to such fraudulent act or conduct is non est and void ab initio - No person should be allowed to keep an advantage which has been obtained by fraud - Respondents inflated their marks in order to obtain admission in the Primary Teachers' .,,.. ~ F Training Institute - Thus, the admission sought for was through an illegal means which is deprecated - No fault can be found with the course of action taken by the appellant - Also respondents were issued show cause notice and were given an opportunity of hearing - Thus, there was no violation G of the principles of natural justice - Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the ' "t' Single Judge of the High Court is restored - Doctrines/ Principles - Natural justice. Ram Preeti Yadav v, UP. Board of High School and H 546 DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB v. 547 MRITUNJOY DAS & ORS. ·--+--. lntermediateEducation and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 311: 2003 (3) A Suppl. SCR 352 - referred to. · Case Law Reference 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 352 Referred to. Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6007 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.201 O of the High Court of Calcutta in MAT No. 254 of 2010. WITH C.A. No. 6008 of 2011. B c Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Nandini Sen for the Appellant. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, D Abhijit Sengupta, B.P. Yadav for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered by ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. As the facts and the legal issues arising for our consideration in both these appeals are similar, we propose E - -'-. to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and F order. ... /) 3. The contesting respondents herein got themselves admitted for a training course, for obtaining the Primary Teachers' Training Institute certificate, which is pre-requisite and G mandatory in order to get appointment as Assistant Teacher in primar)' schools in West Bengal. The contesting respondents herein obtained certificates after completing their training course. Thereafter, they also submitted their candidature for such appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary school in which they were selected and were consequently appointed as H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. - t- A teachers. However, subsequently, it was found that they had taken admission in the aforesaid training course for Primary Teachers' Training Institute Certificate by inflating their marks. It is pointed out that in the said institute, where they got admission for undergoing training, the minimum marks that one • ... B had to obtain for admission in that particular year was 600. Both ~ the contesting respondents inflated their marks. In one case, it was 621 as against 430 marks actually obtained and in the other case, it was 614 as against actual obtained marks of 425. After the aforesaid fact came to light, the appellant herein c issued show cause notice to the contesting respondents and the contesting respondents were also called for a personal hearing. However, none of the contesting respondents availed the opportunity of personal hearing given to them despite the ' fact they submitted their replies to the show cause notices. The t < D appellant thereafter passed orders dismissing the contesting respondents from service. J: 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the contesting respondents herein filed writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court which were dismissed. On appeals filed by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.