# Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1470
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-22
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 1064 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52209
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921- Section
16 E (10) - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
3 - Essential/Preferential qualification - In
the letter dated 04.03.1993 issued by the
District Inspector of Schools granting approval
to the petitioner's appointment, his qualification
is written as "B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Ed." and the
same
qualification
is
mentioned
in
the
petitioner's service book. In case the petitioner
had not claimed possessing a B.Ed. degree,
there was no occasion for the authorities to
include the aforesaid qualification in his service
record. Further, had the authorities had
erroneously mentioned this qualification
on their own, it was open for the
petitioner to point out the error and to get
it rectified, but the petitioner did not do
so. Even if the petitioner's contention that B.Ed.
is not an essential qualification, is accepted, he
admits that it was a preferential qualification
and, therefore, even as per the petitioner, B.Ed.
was not an irrelevant qualification which would
have no effect on the selections, as the
candidates having preferential qualification are
given a preference over other candidates who
possess the essential qualification but do not
possess the preferential qualification. (Para 41)

B. A person who secures an appointment
by
submitting
a
forged
educational
certificate, is not entitled to claim any
opportunity of hearing. (Para 49)

Where the appointment of the petitioners is ab
initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil
servants of the State. Therefore, holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article
311 of the Constitution or under any other
disciplinary rules shall not arise. (Para 50)

In the present case, although the petitioner
claims that he was not given an opportunity of
hearing, he was repeatedly sent show cause
notices. The petitioner did not provide any
documents and on 09.10.2020, the DISs wrote
another letter with contents similar to his earlier
letter dated 18.09.2020 (On 18.09.2020, the
District Inspector of Schools Kushinagar sent a
letter to the Committee of Management of the
college stating that by means of a GO dated
08.07.2020, a direction has been issued for
verification of the educational certificates of the
teachers working in government secondary
schools, non-government aided schools and to
send a report to the Government for taking the
final action in the matter) and a copy of the
verification report sent by Deen Dayal Upadhyay
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1471
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and a copy of
petitioner's marks sheet of B.Ed. were also
enclosed with this letter. A notice was issued
to the petitioner on 17.12.2020 directing
him to show cause within a period of 15
days as to why the appointment obtained
by him on the basis of a forged markssheet be not cancelled and the amount
paid to him as salary be recovered from
him. It was also mentioned in the notice that if
the petitioners fails to show cause, it shall be
deemed that he admits the charges and an
appropriate decision will be taken in the matter.
After
multiple
reminders,
the
petitioner
submitted his reply on 22.06.2021 stating that
he does not hold B.Ed. degree and he had no
concern with the forged B.Ed. Marks-sheet. He
further stated that B.Ed. was not an essential
qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher
and it was merely a preferential qualification.
Thereafter the petitioner was given opportunity
of personal hearing on 17.09.2021, 12.10.2021
and 12.11.2021. (Para 45)

C. The right to salary or pension after
retirement flows from a valid and legal
appointment. Such benefits cannot be
given in a case where the appointment
was
found
to
have
been
obtained
fraudulently.

The petitioner has been found to have secured
a public employment by submitting a forged
marks-sheet,
which
makes
his
initial
appointment as null and void and there is no
illegality in th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,990 of 51,409. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39990 for what follows._

1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. The impugned orders dated
30.04.2008 and 13.02.2007 are hereby
quashed.

26. The respondents pray for
eighteeen months' time for vacating the
premises, which is opposed by the learned
counsel for petitioners and thereafter, an
undertaking was given on behalf of the
respondents that the premises in question
will be vacated within a period of 9
months.

27. As such, the respondents are
directed to vacate the premises in question
within a period of 9 months and handover
the same to the petitioners.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 1064 of 2021
Alonwith
Writ-A No. 6500 of 2022
&
Writ-A No. 7672 of 2024

Ashok Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rahul Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921- Section
16 E (10) - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
3 - Essential/Preferential qualification - In
the letter dated 04.03.1993 issued by the
District Inspector of Schools granting approval
to the petitioner's appointment, his qualification
is written as "B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Ed." and the
same
qualification
is
mentioned
in
the
petitioner's service book. In case the petitioner
had not claimed possessing a B.Ed. degree,
there was no occasion for the authorities to
include the aforesaid qualification in his service
record. Further, had the authorities had
erroneously mentioned this qualification
on their own, it was open for the
petitioner to point out the error and to get
it rectified, but the petitioner did not do
so. Even if the petitioner's contention that B.Ed.
is not an essential qualification, is accepted, he
admits that it was a preferential qualification
and, therefore, even as per the petitioner, B.Ed.
was not an irrelevant qualification which would
have no effect on the selections, as the
candidates having preferential qualification are
given a preference over other candidates who
possess the essential qualification but do not
possess the preferential qualification. (Para 41)

B. A person who secures an appointment
by
submitting
a
forged
educational
certificate, is not entitled to claim any
opportunity of hearing. (Para 49)

Where the appointment of the petitioners is ab
initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil
servants of the State. Therefore, holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article
311 of the Constitution or under any other
disciplinary rules shall not arise. (Para 50)

In the present case, although the petitioner
claims that he was not given an opportunity of
hearing, he was repeatedly sent show cause
notices. The petitioner did not provide any
documents and on 09.10.2020, the DISs wrote
another letter with contents similar to his earlier
letter dated 18.09.2020 (On 18.09.2020, the
District Inspector of Schools Kushinagar sent a
letter to the Committee of Management of the
college stating that by means of a GO dated
08.07.2020, a direction has been issued for
verification of the educational certificates of the
teachers working in government secondary
schools, non-government aided schools and to
send a report to the Government for taking the
final action in the matter) and a copy of the
verification report sent by Deen Dayal Upadhyay
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1471
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and a copy of
petitioner's marks sheet of B.Ed. were also
enclosed with this letter. A notice was issued
to the petitioner on 17.12.2020 directing
him to show cause within a period of 15
days as to why the appointment obtained
by him on the basis of a forged markssheet be not cancelled and the amount
paid to him as salary be recovered from
him. It was also mentioned in the notice that if
the petitioners fails to show cause, it shall be
deemed that he admits the charges and an
appropriate decision will be taken in the matter.
After
multiple
reminders,
the
petitioner
submitted his reply on 22.06.2021 stating that
he does not hold B.Ed. degree and he had no
concern with the forged B.Ed. Marks-sheet. He
further stated that B.Ed. was not an essential
qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher
and it was merely a preferential qualification.
Thereafter the petitioner was given opportunity
of personal hearing on 17.09.2021, 12.10.2021
and 12.11.2021. (Para 45)

C. The right to salary or pension after
retirement flows from a valid and legal
appointment. Such benefits cannot be
given in a case where the appointment
was
found
to
have
been
obtained
fraudulently.

The petitioner has been found to have secured
a public employment by submitting a forged
marks-sheet,
which
makes
his
initial
appointment as null and void and there is no
illegality in the impugned orders. The petitioner
having committed a fraud by submitting a
forged marks-sheet at the time of applying for
his initial appointment, is not entitled to get any
retiral dues. However, as this Court had passed
interim orders in favour of the petitioner
allowing him to continue in service, this Court
does not deem it proper that the salary already
paid to the petitioner be recovered from him.
(Para 52)

All the writ petitions are dismissed. (E-5)

Precedent followed:

1. Reena Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2019 6 AWC
6355 All (Para 29)

2. Ramanand Bharti Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2023
AHC 11 1702 (Para 29)

3. Jaswant Singh Vs District Inspector of
Schools, 1980 SCC OnLine All 44 (Para 30)

4. State of Bihar Vs Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2019)
13 SCC 250 (Para 50)

5. R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs St. of Kerala, (2004)
2 SCC 105 (Para 51)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Jaswant Singh & anr.Vs District Inspector of
Schools & anr., 1980 All. L.J. 174 (Para 28, 31)

2. Gauri Shanker Rai & ors. Vs Dr. Ram Lakhan
Pandey & ors., 1984 All. L.J. 291 (Para 28, 32)

3. Asha Saxena (Dr.) Vs S.K. Chaudhary, 1990
SCC OnLine All 602; (1991) 1 UPBLEC 250 (Para
28, 33)

4. Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2000 SCC
OnLine All 973; 2001 All LJ 485 (Para 28, 34)

5. Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs Tej Bahadur
Prajapati, (2004) 10 SCC 65 (Para 35)

6. State of Orissa Vs Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC
275 (Para 36)

7. P.S. Sathappan Vs Andhra Bank Ltd., (2004)
11 SCC 672 (Para 37)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri. Rahul Jain, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Shailendra
Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the
State of U. P. appearing for the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 and Sri. Ramesh Chandra
Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the
respondent
no.
4
-
Committee
of
Management,
Janta
Inter
College,
Ramkola, Kushi Nagar.

2. All the three Writ Petitions have
been filed by the same petitioner relating to
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same set of disputes, as would appear
from the narration made in the following
paragraphs and, therefore, the three Writ
Petitions are being decided by a common
judgment.

3. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded
in the Writ Petitions are that on 30.01.1993
the Committee of Management, Janta Inter
College, Ramkola, Deoria (Now Kushi
Nagar) passed a resolution for appointment
of the petitioner as an L.T. Grade Teacher
on ad-hoc basis against a short term
vacancy till return of one Rakesh Govind
Ram to his original post. The District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria granted
approval and financial sanction to the
petitioner's appointment by means of an
order dated 04.03.1993, in which the
description of the petitioner is "Ashok
Kumar Singh, B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Ed."
The Manager of the College issued a letter
to the petitioner on 06.03.1993 appointing
him on ad-hoc basis till a regularly selected
candidate joins the post. The petitioner took
charge of the post on 10.03.1993.

4. The petitioner has pleaded
that he possesses B.Sc. Agriculture and
M.A. Political Science qualifications
and he does not possess a B.Ed. degree
and that B.Ed. was not an essential
qualification for the post on which he
was
appointed
and
he
had
been
appointed
on
the
basis
of
the
qualification
which
he
actually
possessed.

5. On 15.09.2008, the Regional
Level
Selection
Committee
recommended
regularization
of
the
petitioner's
service
and
it
was
specifically mentioned in the resolution
that if any fact regarding the ad hoc
appointment of the petitioner has been
concealed, the regularization of the
petitioner's service shall automatically
stand cancelled upon such fact coming
to light and being affirmed in an
enquiry.

6. The District Inspector of
Schools, Kushinagar passed an order
dated 09.11.2015 sanctioning payment
of selection grade pay to the petitioner
with
effect
from
the
date
of
regularization of his services and this
order also specifically mentions that in
case any fact has been cancelled in the
matter, the order shall be cancelled
automatically and the amount paid to
the petitioner shall be recovered.

7. On 18.09.2020, the District
Inspector of Schools Kushinagar sent a
letter to the Committee of Management
of the college stating that by means of a
Government Order dated 08.07.2020, a
direction
has
been
issued
for
verification
of
the
educational
certificates of the teachers working in
government secondary schools, nongovernment aided schools and to send a
report to the Government for taking the
final action in the matter. A District
Level Committee constituted under the
chairmanship of the District Magistrate
has to take action in the matter. Upon
verification of the B.Ed. Marks-sheet of
the
petitioner
from
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, it was
found that the particulars mentioned in the
self-attested marks-sheet provided by the
petitioner did not tally with the verification
report provided by the University and the
roll number 6969 mentioned in the self
attested marks-sheet provided by the
petitioner belonged to one Ashok Kumar
Upadhyay, from which it transpired that the
B.Ed.
marks-sheet
provided
by
the
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1473
petitioner was forged and he has obtained
employment on the basis of a forged
certificate of an essential qualification. The
letter directed the respondent no. 4 to lodge
a First Information Report against the
petitioner and to pass a resolution for
termination of the petitioner's service under
Section 16 E (10) of the U. P. Intermediate
Education Act. All the original documents
relating to the appointment of the petitioner
be sent to the District Inspector of Schools.
The payment of salary to the petitioner was
stopped and it was directed that no work be
taken from him.

8. On 21.09.2020, the Manager of
the college sent a letter to the petitioner
stating that the District Inspector of
Schools had informed through his letter
dated 18.09.2020 that the petitioner's
marks sheet of B.Ed. is forged and an
enquiry had been scheduled to be held in
the office of the Additional District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on
22.09.2020 and the District Inspector of
Schools
had
demanded
the
original
educational certificates of the petitioner.
The letter directed the petitioner to provide
his
original
educational
certificates
alongwith a set of self attested copies of the
same.

9. The petitioner claims that on
21.09.2020, he had sent a letter to the
District Inspector of Schools stating that he
was not keeping well and he needs two
weeks' time to submit his version. He
further stated that he had already sent
information of his illness to the school on
19.09.2020, but he has not brought on
record a copy of any such information. The
petitioner has annexed a copy of a
prescription dated 18.09.2020 issued by the
District
Hospital,
Deoria,
in
which
complaints of fever, pain in abdomen and
viral hepatitis have been recorded, the
petitioner was advised bed rest for 15 days
and the following medicines have been
prescribed to him: -

Tab. Ciplox 500 twice a day
Tab. Cefexime twice a day
Tab. PCM (Paracetamol) thrice a
day
Tab. Becosules once a day
Tab. Liv 52 once a day
For 15 days

10. The petitioner has annexed
another prescription dated 03.10.2020,
which also records complaints of fever,
nausea and viral hepatitis have been
recorded and the following medicines have
been prescribed: -

Tab. Cefexime twice a day
Tab. PCM (Paracetamol) twice a
day
Tab. Liv 52 once a day
For 15 days

11. The petitioner did not provide
any documents and on 09.10.2020, the
District Inspector of Schools wrote another
letter with contents similar to his earlier
letter dated 18.09.2020 and a copy of the
verification report sent by Deen Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur
University,
Gorakhpur and a copy of petitioner's marks
sheet of B.Ed. were also enclosed with this
letter.

12. The petitioner did not provide
any documents and his salary was stopped
by means of an order dated 09.10.2020
passed by the District Inspector of Schools.

13. The petitioner filed Writ A No.
1064 of 2021 challenging the order dated
09.10.2020 passed by the District Inspector
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Schools and this Court passed an interim
order
dated
01.02.2021
staying
the
operation of the order dated 09.10.2020, on
the ground that the order had been passed
without following the principles of natural
justice.

14. The State through the District
Inspector of Schools has filed a stay
vacation application alongwith a counter
affidavit in Writ A No 1064 of 2021 inter
alia stating in paragraph 6 thereof that at
the time of applying for appointment, the
petitioner had shown his qualification as
B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Ed., which is
clear from the approval letter dated
04.03.1993 annexed by the petitioner as
Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.

15. In the rejoinder affidavit filed
in Writ A No 1064 of 2021, the petitioner
has denied that he had shown B.Ed. as his
qualification and he has stated that the
approval order dated 04.03.1993 wrongly
mentions B.Ed. as his qualification. He has
further stated that B.Ed. is only a desirable
qualification for the post in question and it
is not an essential qualification.

16. A notice was issued to the
petitioner on 17.12.2020 directing him to
show cause within a period of 15 days as to
why the appointment obtained by him on
the basis of a forged marks-sheet be not
cancelled and the amount paid to him as
salary be recovered from him. It was also
mentioned in the notice that if the petitioner
fails to show cause, it shall be deemed that
he admits the charges and an appropriate
decision will be taken in the matter. When
the petitioner did not respond to the notice,
reminders were sent to him on 25.01.2021
and 04.03.2021. The petitioner personally
received the notice from the office of the
Director Education on 16.03.2021 and he
asked for 15 days' time to submit his reply.
When he did not submit any reply within
the stipulated period, again reminders were
sent to him on 15.04.2021 and 31.05.2021
through registered post. Ultimately, the
petitioner
submitted
his
reply
on
22.06.2021 stating that he does not hold
B.Ed. degree and he had no concern with
the forged B.Ed. Marks-sheet. He further
stated that B.Ed. was not an essential
qualification for the post of Assistant
Teacher and it was merely a preferential
qualification.

17. Thereafter the petitioner was
given opportunity of personal hearing on
17.09.2021, 12.10.2021 and 12.11.2021.

18. On 11.03.2022, the Director
Education (Secondary) U.P. passed an order
holding that the petitioner had obtained
appointment on the basis of a forged
marks-sheet of B.Ed. and he got the same
regularized by concealment of fact. The
regularization order categorically states that
in case any concealed fact comes to light,
the regularization order will be cancelled
automatically. The Director declared the
appointment of the petitioner to be without
qualification and void and he has been
removed from the service.

19. The petitioner challenged the
validity of the aforesaid order dated
11.03.2022 by filing Writ A No. 6500 of
2022 and this Court passed the following
interim order on 04.05.2022: -

"The State Government is
directed to initiate inquiry against
all the public servants who were
involved in the regularization and
grant of selection grade to the
petitioner since the year 2008 till
date and fix the responsibility on
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1475
the erring public servant / servants
as to how the person having a
forged mark sheet was permitted to
be
given
regular
public
employment at the cost of public
exchequer by them.
The state government will
initiate inquiry against all the
public servants involved in this
dispute and submit its report before
this court in three months after
conducting
the
inquiry
in
accordance with law, granting
opportunity of hearing to each and
every public servant involved in
this case.
Put up this case as a fresh
case on 10.08.2022.
Issue notice to respondent
no. 4.
Steps be taken within a
week.
The impugned orders dated
11.03.2022/21.03.2022 passed by
Director of Education shall remain
stayed till the next date and the
working of the petitioner shall not
be disturbed."

20. The Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government of U.P.
has filed his personal affidavit stating that
an enquiry was conducted in compliance of
the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by this
Court and five officers named in the
affidavit were found guilty for approval of
ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner,
regularization of his service and grant of
selection grade to him without verification
of his certificates / marks sheets, but all
those officers had retired from service and
disciplinary proceedings could not be
initiated against them under Rule 3 of the
U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.
21. The Deputy Director of
Education (Secondary) has filed a counter
affidavit in Writ A No. 6500 of 2022 inter
alia stating that the minimum educational
qualification for appointment to a post of
Assistant Teacher in subject Civics is a
Bachelor's degree in any two subjects -
History, Geography, Civics or Economics
and
B.Ed.
training.
The
minimum
educational qualification for the post of
Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Agriculture
subject is B.Sc. Agriculture and L.T.
training. The petitioner was appointed on
ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy
of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in subject
Civics and that too, on the basis of a forged
B.Ed. degree and, therefore, his initial
appointment is null and void. It is further
mentioned in the counter affidavit that an
F.I.R. No. 0292 under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C. has been lodged
against the petitioner on 17.10.2022 in
Police
Station
Ramkola
District
Kushinagar.

22.

The
Committee
of
Management of the college has also filed a
counter affidavit in Writ A No. 6500 of
2022 inter alia stating that the manager of
the college had sent a show cause notice
dated 19.10.2020 to the petitioner through
registered post and he had been called to
appear on 26.10.2020 but he did not submit
any explanation and he did not appear also.
Thereafter
a
three
member
inquiry
committee was constituted on 19.11.2020
and a notice dated 29.10.2020 was sent to
the
petitioner
giving
him
another
opportunity to show cause. The Enquiry
Committee
held
its
meetings
on
08.11.2020, but the petitioner did not
appear. The enquiry committee sent another
notice dated 09.11.2020 to the petitioner
fixing 13.11.2020 as the next date, but the
petitioner did not appear again. The enquiry
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was adjourned to 19.11.2020, but he did not
appear again and he was not attending the
college also. The three member enquiry
committee submitted its recommendation
dated 19.11.2020 stating that as per the
information provided by Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, the B.Ed.
marks-sheet of the petitioner is forged and
the petitioner has no explanation to offer.
Accordingly, the committee recommended
termination of services of the petitioner.

23. On 23.11.2020, the Committee
of Management has passed a resolution
stating that the conduct of the petitioner in
not giving any explanation or evidence in
spite
of
being
granted
numerous
opportunities shows that he has nothing to
say and he has no evidence in his favour.
Therefore, the committee recommended
termination of service of the petitioner and
his suspension till termination.

24. A copy of the petitioner's
service book has been annexed with the
counter affidavit filed by the committee of
management,
wherein
the
petitioner's
qualification
is
mentioned
as
"B.Sc.
Agriculture, B.Ed."

25.

The
Committee
of
Management, Janta Inter College filed
Special Appeal No. 39 of 2023 against the
interim order dated 04.05.2022 passed in
Writ A No. 6500 of 2022, which was
dismissed by means of an order dated
28.02.2023 leaving it open to the appellant
to file a counter affidavit in the Writ
Petition and seek vacation of the stay order.

26. The petitioner filed a petition
for contempt due to non-compliance with
the interim order dated 04.05.2022 passed
in Writ A No. 6500 of 2022 and the
Contempt Court had passed an order dated
18.01.2023 whereby the salary of the
district Inspector of Schools was withheld.
Thereafter the District Inspector of Schools
filed Special Appeal No. 80 of 2023 against
the
order
dated
18.01.2023
passed
contempt case, which was allowed by
means of an order dated 16.03.2023 and the
order dated 18.01.2023 was modified.

27. Thereafter the petitioner
submitted representations for registering
his name on the Human Resources Portal
and for preparation of his pension papers
and meanwhile he retired on 31.03.2024.
After retirement, the petitioner submitted
representations for payment of pension and
he has filed Writ A No. 7682 of 2024 for
issuance
of
a
Writ
of
Mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 4 to
prepare the papers regarding payment of
pension to the petitioner and forward the
same to the District Inspector of Schools,
Kushinagar, and to direct the respondents to
pay pension and other retiral dues for the
post of L.T. Grade Teacher to the petitioner.

28. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
did not ever claim that he possesses B.Ed.
degree and that B.Ed. was merely a desired
qualification for the post in question and it
was not an essential qualification. He has
further submitted that the impugned orders
have been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. In support of
his submissions, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgments
in the cases of Jaswant Singh and another
versus District Inspector of Schools and
another:
1980
All.L.J.
174,
Gauri
Shanker Rai and others versus Dr. Ram
Lakhan Pandey and others: 1984 All. L.
J. 291, Smt. S. K. Chaudhari versus
Manager, Committee of Management,
Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College,
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1477
Lookerganj,
Allahanbad
&
others:
(1991) 1 UPLBEC 250 (FB) and Rajeev
Kumar Singh versus State of U.P. and
others: 2001 All.L.J. 485.

29.
Per
Contra,
the
learned
Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel
for the Committee of Management of the
college have submitted that the petitioner
had secured appointment on the basis of a
forged marks sheet of B.Ed. and he
deliberately failed to avail the opportunity
of hearing provided to him. They have
relied upon the judgments in the cases of
Reena Devi versus State of U.P. and 4
others: 2019 6 AWC 6355 All and
Ramanand Bharti versus State of U.P.
and 2 others: 2023:AHC:111702.

30. In Jaswant Singh v. District
Inspector of Schools, 1980 SCC OnLine
All 44, a coordinate bench of this Court
was dealing with the matter of passing of
successive orders by the District Inspectors
of Schools regarding grant of recognition to
a duly elected committee of management.
This Court referred to various precedents
on the point and formulated the following
principles: -

"In view of the aforesaid
decisions and in view of the nature
of the jurisdiction which the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
exercises
in
the
matter
of
recognition of a committee of
management and further in view
of the consequences of the orders
which he passes we are of opinion
that
the
following
principles
emerge in this behalf:-
(1) The District Inspector
of Schools does not have the
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a
claim made by rival committees of
management, each one of them
asserting to have been duly elected
and to give a final decision thereon.
No such power has been conferred
on
him
either
by
the
U.P.
Intermdiate Education Act or by
the High School and Intermediate
Colleges (Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and other Employees)
Act, 1971. The jurisdiction to
decide such a dispute rests with the
Civil Court.
(2)
Since
the
District
Inspector of Schools under the
aforesaid two Acts has to perform
various administrative functions of
statutory
character
in
collaboration with the management
of High Schools and Intermediate
Colleges and since these duties
cannot be discharged by him unless
he is in a position to find out on an
administrative level as to who are
the real office-bearers of the
college, he for this limited purpose
must of necessity satisfy himself as
to who, according to him, are the
validly elected office-bearers of the
institution. This satisfaction has to
be reached by the District Inspector
of Schools by making a summary
enquiry on an administrative level.
(3) The order so passed by
the District Inspector of Schools
does not have the effect of finally
adjudicating
upon
the
dispute
between the parties. The remedy of
the aggrieved party is to institute a
suit
in
the
Civil
Court
for
appropriate relief and the decision
given in the suit will alone have the
effect of making a final and binding
adjudication in the matter and the
said decision will have to be given
effect to by the District Inspector of
1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Schools in supersession of the
order that may have been passed by
him earlier.
(4) The inquiry which the
District Inspector of Schools has to
make
for
his
satisfaction
as
aforesaid is to be confined to the
question as to whether a fresh
election has taken place and if so
who are the persons who have been
elected to constitute the committee
of management. This inquiry is to
be made by first ascertaining as to
whether the meeting to hold the
election had been convened in
accordance with the requirements
of the scheme of administration and
any other relevant provision in this
behalf applicable to the affairs of
the
society
which
runs
the
institution. If the meeting had been
so convened reference should be
made to the minutes of the meeting
in order to find out as to who were
the persons who were duly elected
to constitute the committee of
management. Such disputes which
the parties may raise before him
which are contrary to the minutes
of the meeting held and which
involve
decision
of
disputed
questions of fact after taking
evidence should be left open to be
decided by the Civil Court in a suit
which may be filed by the person
aggrieved by the order of the
District Inspector of Schools.
(5) The District Inspector
of Schools is not expected to write
a detailed order as if it were a
judgment of a Court of law. His
order must, however, indicate that
he has applied his mind to the
controversy involved before him for
if the order does not disclose
application of mind it is likely to be
termed arbitrary.
(6) The District Inspector
of Schools having once passed an
order in the manner stated above
does not have jurisdiction to review
his order unless it is established
that the said order had been
obtained by misrepresentation or
fraud or was the result of mistake
in the sense that it was passed on
incorrect facts and would not have
at all been passed if the correct
facts had been brought to his
notice. These facts should, however,
be such which go to the very root of
the matter. The District Inspector of
Schools has no power to review his
earlier order on a fresh assessment
of facts or law.
(7) Even in those cases
where it is established that the
earlier order had been obtained by
misrepresentation or fraud or had
been given under mistake as
aforesaid the District Inspector of
Schools must not recall or revoke
the said order without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the
person in whose favour the said
order had been passed.
(8) The opportunity of
hearing
which
the
District
Inspector of Schools has to give
either at the stage of passing the
initial
order
or
recalling
or
revoking it in the circumstances
stated above is to be confined to
giving the persons concerned an
opportunity to put forward their
case. It is not to be converted into a
regular hearing as is done by a
Civil Court. The District Inspector
of Schools has to keep in mind that
the inquiry to be made by him is of
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
a summary nature and on an
administrative
level
meant
to
satisfy himself as to who, according
to him, are the validly elected
office-bearers of the committee of
management. In other words the
District Inspector of Schools should
not
arrogate
to
himself
the
jurisdiction of a Civil Court and
thereby assume the power to decide
the fate of the parties before him.

31.

Jaswant
Singh
(Supra)
specifically deals with the scope of powers
of the District Inspector of Schools in
passing successive orders in the matter of
grant of recognition to a duly constituted
Committee of Management of a college
and the question of obtaining appointment
on
the
basis
of
forged
educational
certificate was not involved in this case.
Therefore, it is not relevant for adjudication
of the present case.

32. In Gauri Shanker Rai v. Dr.
Ram Lakhan Pandey: 1983 SCC OnLine
All 794 : 1984 All LJ 291, there was a
dispute of management of the college. The
District Inspector of Schools passed an
order holding that the Committee of
management elected on 13.02.1979 was
entitled to continue to manage the affairs of
the Institution. After change of the person
holding the post of D.I.O.S., the subsequent
incumbent passed another order reviewing
the earlier order passed by his predecessor.
Two contentions were raised before this
Court: -

1. The District Inspector of
Schools had no jurisdiction to
review the order passed by his
predecessor on 13-6-1980.
2.
No
opportunity
whatsoever was given to the
petitioners
before
the
District
Inspector of Schools passed the
impugned order dated 1-8-1980.
This Court held that both
these contentions are right. The
aforesaid case also related to
recognition of rival committees of
management and the question of
scope of interference in the matter
of appointment obtained on the
basis
of
forged
education
certificates was not involved in this
case.

33. In Asha Saxena (Dr.) v. S.K.
Chaudhari: 1990 SCC OnLine All 602 =
(1991) 1 UPLBEC 250, the first question
involved was about the inter se seniority of
the three Lecturers. The next question was
as to whether the provisions of clause
3(1)(bb) of Chapter II of the U. P.
Intermediate
Education
Act
are
retrospective in its operation or not, on
which the Full Bench held that the
provisions of clause 3(1)(bb) of Chapter II
are not retrospective in operation. In light
of the aforesaid answer, the Full Bench
held
that
the
controversy
regarding
seniority of the three lecturers was
determined by the Managing Committee on
29.04.1976 and the seniority list had
remained in existence since then. The Full
Bench further held that the law is well
settled that the court will not interfere with
a seniority list which had remained in
existence for a long time and which had
become
final. The
Management
had
determined the seniority on 29.04.1976
after affording opportunity to Dr. Asha
Saxena. She did not file any appeal against
the
decision
of
the
Committee
of
Management even though an appeal may
have been preferred. Objections by Dr.
Asha Saxena had been filed after a lapse of
nearly 15 years. She did not raise an
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection that seniority list was not
prepared every year. The only objection
raised was that she did not know about the
insertion of provisions of Section 3(1)(bb)
in Chapter II and she filed the objections
after coming to know of the aforesaid
provision.
In
the
aforesaid
factual
background, the Full Bench held that as the
seniority list had been existing since the
year 1975-1976, this Court was not
prepared to quash the seniority list after a
lapse of nearly 15 years. The Full Bench
decision given in the aforesaid background
is not applicable for adjudication fo the
dispute involved in the present case.

34. In Rajeev Kumar Singh v.
State of U.P., 2000 SCC OnLine All 973 =
2001 All LJ 485, the question was whether
the petitioner was qualified to be appointed
as Assistant Teacher (Art). The DIOS had
rejected the claim of the petitioner as he
was not 'Trained' as provided in Appendix
'A' to Chapter II of the Regulations. This
Court held that 'Trained' was not an
essential qualification for appointment to
the post of Assistant Teacher (Art) for
teaching classes IX and X. 'Trained' was a
desirable qualification for the post. There is
a difference in desirable or preferential
qualification and essential qualification. If
a candidate does not possess essential
qualification, then he is ineligible for the
post.
Since
'Trained'
was
only
a
preferential qualification the petitioner
could not be held ineligible, on this ground.
The question commission of fraud by
submission of a forged marks-sheet was not
involved in this case and, therefore, this
judgment is not relevant for adjudication of
the controversy involved in the present
case.

35.

In Amrendra
Pratap
Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, (2004)
10 SCC 65, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that:

"A judicial decision is an
authority for what it actually
decides and not for what can be
read into it by implication or by
assigning an assumed intention to
the judges, and inferring from it a
proposition of law which the judges
have not specifically laid down in
the pronouncement.

36. In State of Orissa v. Mohd.
Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 it was reiterated
that:-

"12.... A decision is a
precedent on its own facts. Each
case presents its own features. It is
not everything said by a Judge
while
giving
judgment
that
constitutes a precedent. The only
thing in a Judge's decision binding
a party is the principle upon which
the case is decided and for this
reason it is important to analyse a
decision and isolate from it the
ratio decidendi. According to the
well-settled theory of precedents,
every decision contains three basic
postulates : (i) findings of material
facts, direct and inferential. An
inferential finding of facts is the
inference which the Judge draws
from the direct, or perceptible
facts;
(ii)
statements
of
the
principles of law applicable to the
legal problems disclosed by the
facts; and (iii) judgment based on
the combined effect of the above. A
decision is an authority for what it
actually decides. What is of the
essence in a decision is its ratio
and not every observation found
7 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1481
therein nor what logically flows
from the various observations made
in the judgment. The enunciation of
the reason or principle on which a
question before a court has been
decided is alone binding as a
precedent.
(See State
of
Orissa v. Sudhansu
Sekhar
Misra (1968) 2 SCR 154 and Union
of India v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996)
6
SCC
44.)
A
case
is
a
precedent and binding for what it
explicitly decides and no more. The
words used by Judges in their
judgments are not to be read as if
they are words in an Act of
Parliament.
In Quinn v. Leathem [1901]
A.C.
495 the Earl of Halsbury, L.C.
observed that every judgment must
be read as applicable to the
particular facts proved or assumed
to be proved, since the generality of
the expressions which are found
there are not intended to be the
exposition of the whole law but
governed and qualified by the
particular facts of the case in which
such expressions are found and a
case is only an authority for what it
actually decides."

37. In P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra
Bank
Ltd., (2004)
11
SCC
672,
a
Constitution Bench consisting of five
Hon'ble Judges held that:-

"144. While
analysing
different decisions rendered by this
Court, an attempt has been made to
read the judgments as should be
read under the rule of precedents. A
decision, it is trite, should not be
read as a statute.
145. A
decision
is
an
authority for the questions of law
determined by it. While applying
the ratio, the court may not pick out
a word or a sentence from the
judgment divorced from the context
in which the said question arose for
consideration. A judgment, as is
well known, must be read in its
entirety and the observations made
therein
should
receive
consideration in the light of the
questions
raised
before
it.
[See Haryana
Financial
Corpn. v. Jagdamba
Oil
Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496, Union of
India v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6
SCC
44, Nalini
Mahajan
(Dr.) v. Director of Income Tax
(Investigation) (2002)
257
ITR
123 (Del), State
of
U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals
Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139, A-One
Granites v. State of U.P. (2001) 3
SCC
537 and Bhavnagar
University v. Palitana Sugar Mill
(P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111.
146. Although decisions are
galore on this point, we may refer
to
a
recent
one
in State
of
Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi
V.S. Mahamandal (2004) 5 SCC
155 wherein this Court held : (SCC
p. 172, para 19)

"It
is
trite
that
any
observation
made
during
the
course of reasoning in a judgment
should not be read divorced from
the context in which it was used."
147. It
is
further
well
settled that a decision is not an
authority for the proposition which
did not fall for its consideration."
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
38. Therefore, the aforesaid
judgments relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner would not apply
to the facts of and the points involved in the
present case, which was not involved in
any of those cases.

39. In Reena Devi versus State of
U.P. and 4 others: 2019 6 AWC 6355 All,
a coordinate Bench of this Court referred to
various precedents and concluded that: -

"14. Thus, where a person
secures appointment on the basis of
a forged mark-sheet or certificate
or appointment letter and on that
basis he or she has been inducted
in Government service then he
becomes beneficiary of illegal and
fraudulent appointment. Such an
appointment is illegal and void ab
initio.
Therefore,
holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged
by Article 311 of the Constitution of
India or under any disciplinary
rules including the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973
or the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999, shall not arise."

40. In Ramanand Bharti versus
State
of
U.P.
and
2
others:
2023:AHC:111702,
another
coordinate
bench of this Court held that: -

"Where a person secures
appointment on the basis of a
forged marksheet or certificate or
appointment letter and on that
basis he or she has been inducted
in Government service then he
becomes beneficiary of illegal and
fraudulent appointment. Such an
appointment is void ab initio.
Therefore,
holding
disciplinary
proceedings envisages by Article
311 of the Constitution of India or
under
any
disciplinary
rules
including the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules
1999, shall not arise."

41.