# Deepa Magleena v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 765
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 10843 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepa-magleena-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54786
- **Pages:** 23

## Text

_Characters 0–39,908 of 77,701. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39908 for what follows._

11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
765
writ petition that petitioner be
recommended for appointment on post of
Instructor in Cosmetology on the basis of
NTC since admittedly, she has not filed the
details of NTC in online form and has
failed
to
correct
the
details
within
stipulated period, therefore, there is no
reason to accept her plea.

12. Accordingly, writ petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 765
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 10843 of 2025

Deepa Magleena ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jigar Khare, Shagun K. Saran, Yash Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Srishti Gupta,C.S.C., Shruti Taneja

Issue for Consideration
1. Permissibility of claiming the absorption by a
teacher appointed in the year 1991, particularly
when she herself applied afresh in pursuance of
advertisement issued in the year 2019.
2. Applicability of doctrine of estoppel and
principle of acquiescence.
3. Scope of reasonable restriction provided to
right of minority right under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution of India and Permissibility of
seeking
exemption
from
requirement
of
possessing the T.E.T. certificate.
4. Effect of using forged U.P.T.E.T. certificate to
obtain appointment.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post of Assistant
Teacher in the minority institution -
Petitioner, though appointed in the year
1991, she applied afresh for selection
process
held
in
pursuance
of
the
advertisement issued in the year 2019 -
Claim
of
absorption
was
made
-
Permissibility - Doctrine of estoppel and
principle of acquiescence - Applicability :
Held : The petitioner herself applied afresh
pursuant to the public advertisement issued in
2019, participated in the selection process
without protest, and was duly issued an
appointment letter thereafter - In view of the
doctrine
of
estoppel
and
principle
of
acquiescence, once the petitioner voluntarily
subjected herself to the fresh recruitment
process, she cannot now claim absorption with
retrospective effect based on the inclusion of
the institution in the Grant-in-Aid list. [Paras 84
and 85]
(B) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) -
Minority institution - Right to establish
and administer - Reasonable restriction -
Scope - Exemption from requirement of
possessing T.E.T. certificate claimed -
Permissibility :
Held : Article 30(1) undoubtedly guarantees to
minorities the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice; however,
this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity
from reasonable regulations framed to ensure
academic excellence and maintain standards of
education. - The said right is subject to
reasonable restrictions in the interest of
maintaining efficiency, discipline, and proper
utilization of public funds where the institution is
in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State - The
Constitution Bench in the case of T.M.A. Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC
481, categorically held that 'the right to
administer does not include the right to maladminister' - The exemption sought from the
mandatory requirement of T.E.T., which is a
qualification
prescribed
in
furtherance
of
maintaining
minimum
teaching
standards,
cannot be sustained. The plea founded upon
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is
therefore untenable. [Para 92, 93, 95 and 104]
(C) Service law - Appointment - Post of
Assistant Teacher in minority institution -
Forged U.P.T.E.T. certificate was used to
obtain
appointment
- In
verification
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report, the petitioner was found failed in
U.P.T.E.T.
examination,
but
certificate
with passed result was used - Effect :
Held : It is an undisputed fact that the
petitioner produced a forged TET certificate
while seeking appointment to the post of
Assistant
Teacher
pursuant
to
the
said
advertisement.
Therefore,
the
appointment
obtained by the petitioner is ex facie illegal, void
ab initio, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law - It is settled proposition of law that fraud
vitiates every solemn act. An appointment
obtained by suppression of material facts,
misrepresentation or non-disclosure does not
create any enforceable right in favour of the
appointee. [Paras 99 and 102] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481; Pramati Educational Trust v.
Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1; Government of
Tamil Nadu v. T. Selvarani (Madras High Court)
decided on 22.01.2024; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's
College Vs. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717;
Writ A No. 20140 of 2023, Kamlesh Kumar
Nirankari v. State of U.P. & 2 Others decided on
25.08.2025; Diocese of Varanasi Education v.
State of U.P.; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
AIR 1978 SC 597; State of Punjab and Another
v. Gurdial Singh and others, (1980) 2 SCC 471;
State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1;
Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari (2007) 8
SCC 600; State of Orissa v. Dr. Miss Binapani
Dei and others, AIR 1967 SC 1269; Mohinder
Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1978) 1
SCC 405; Committee of Management v. State of
U.P., 2009 (11) ADJ 641; St. John Inter College
v. State of U.P., AIR 2007 All 65; P.A. Inamdar
v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537;
Sindhi Education Society v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, (2010) 8 SCC 49; State of Bihar v.
Upendra Narayan Singh and others, (2009) 5
SCC 65; District Basic Education Officer v. Ku.
Anita Kumari, (2012 (3) AWC 2610); Madan Lal
and others v. State of J&K and others, (1995) 3
SCC 486; Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v.
Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309; State
of Rajasthan and others v. Daya Lal and others,
(2011) 2 SCC 429; Union of India v. M.
Bhaskaran, 1995 supp. (4) SCC 100; A.P. Public
Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu,
(2005) 7 SCC 177; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State
of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105; All Saints High
School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,
(1980) 2 SCC 478; St. John's Teachers Training
Institute v. Regional Director, (2003) 3 SCC 321;
A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat
Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669; Usha Singh v. State
of U.P. and another, 2017 SCC Online All 6109;
Writ A No.11846 of 2025, Virendra Kumar
Mishra v. State of UP and 4 Others; Writ A No.
12839 of 2023, Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and
8 Others; Writ A No. 12336 of 2025, Pankaj
Mathur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others; Writ A No.
20140 of 2023, Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari v.
State of U.P. and 2 Others - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14 and 30(1);
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009; UP Government Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999; UP Basic
Education Act, 1972; UP Junior High School
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1978 - Section 6(2); UP
recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978.

List of Keywords
Minority institution; Appointment; Verification
report; Forged T.E.T. certificate; Void ab initio;
Mala fide; Merit-based retention; Constitutional
autonomy;
Jurisdiction;
Chargesheet;
Disciplinary
enquiry;
Suspension;
Arbitrary
manner; Show cause notice; Non-minority
institution; Grant-in-aid list; Cancellation of
appointment; Fundamental right of minorities;
Regulatory measure; Educational credentials;
Settled
judicial
precedents;
Constitutional
protection
from
unwarranted
interference;
Princile of natural justice; Unsustainable in law;
Extraordinary
measure;
Minority
character;
Cancellation of appointment; Sanctioned post;
Doctrine of estoppels; Principle of acquiescence;
Absorption;
Inherent
right;
Mal-administer;
Fraud;
Suppression
of
material
facts;
Misrepresentation; Consequential termination;
Fundamentally flawed.

Case Arising From
Impugned order declaring the appointment of
the petitioner 'void ab initio'

Appearances for Parties
11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
767
Advs. for the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Ojha, Senior
Advocate; Yash Singhal; Jigar Khare; Shagun K.
Saran.
Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Khare,
Senior Advocate; Srishti Gupta; Ashish Kumar
Nagvanshi; Shruti Taneja.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Yash
Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Ms. Srishti Gupta, learned
counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Ashish
Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the
State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with
the following prayers:-

"(a) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the record and
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
25.02.2025, (Letter No.20827-35/2024-25)
passed by respondent no.2.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the record and
quashing the impugned suspension order
dated 01.03.2025 passed by respondent
no.3.

(c) Issue an appropriate writ,
order
or
direction
commanding
the
respondents to ensure payment of withheld
salary from 25.06.2024 till date and further
the regular salary payable from month to
month to the petitioner.

(d) Issue an appropriate writ,
order
or
direction
commanding
the
respondents to pay interest upon the arrears
of salary till the date of actual payment.

(e) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondent
no.3 to reinstate the petitioner with all
consequential benefit other services as
Assistant Teacher, Hindi (Primary) at St.
Joseph Girls High School, Moradabad.

(f) Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction, which this Honb'le
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

(g) To award the cost of this
petition to the petitioner."

3. Placing the brief facts of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher of Hindi, (Primary) on
01.07.1991, on a contractual basis, in an
Institution, namely, St. Joseph's Girls
Junior
High
School,
Civil
Lines,
Moradabad, (in short the institution),
which is a minority Institution established
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India. The contract of the petitioner was
renewed from time to time and was
operative without any time gap. The
Institution in question came into grant-inaid list in the year 2015, accordingly,
appointments were made in the Institution
and the petitioner was issued appointment
letter on 26.06.2015. The petitioner took
charge as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on
01.07.2015 before the Manager of the
Institution, an experience certificate has
been issued to the petitioner by the
Government aided Institution, mentioning
that the petitioner has been continuously
working in the primary wing and was
thereafter
appointed
in
the
Junior
department as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on
01.07.2015, thus, it clearly transpires from
the experience certificate that the petitioner
had been regularly working from 1991 till
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2015, and thereafter she was appointed as
an
Assistant
Teacher
in
the
aided
Institution.

4. On a complaint made by one
Ashutosh
Chauhan
(which
has
been
categorically denied by him through an
affidavit) with respect to forged TET
certificate of the petitioner being placed for
obtaining
appointment
as
Assistant
Teacher. Pursuant to which, an inquiry was
initiated regarding appointments made by
the Manager of the said Institution in
collusion with one Anuj Kumar, Principal
of Janta Junior High School, Jargaon,
Moradabad. Thereafter, respondent no.2,
vide letter dated 25.06.2024 sought details
from the petitioner with respect to her
appointment and proceeded to stop the
payment of salary and substance allowance
was also not paid to her, therefore, the
petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.19101 of
2024 (Deepa Magleena vs. District Basic
Education
Officer
and
Ors.)
for
disbursement of salary.

5. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 20.12.2024, set aside the
impugned order dated 25.06.2025 and
remitted the matter to the respondent
authorities with the following directions:-

"Heard
Shri
Dharmendra
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents No.1, 2-State.

The petitioner claims that she was
appointed
as
Assistant
Teacher
on
01.07.1991. The petitioner had submitted
true and authentic academic credentials at
the
time
of
her
appointment.
The
testimonials/certificates of the petitioner
have not been found to be forged by any
competent authority till date.

By the impugned order dated
25.06.2024 the salary of the petitioner has
been withheld on the footing that the
genuineness of the educational certificates
and other testimonies was questionable.
However, admittedly no enquiry was
conducted into authenticity of the said
educational testimonials.

This fact has been fairly admitted
by the State on the basis of the instructions.
The salary of the petitioner cannot be
withheld without holding a proper enquiry.

In this wake, the impugned order
dated 25.06.2024 is liable to be set aside
and is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the
respondents-authorities/competent
authority with the following directions:

I. The petitioner shall be given a
show cause notice along with relevant
documents proposed to be relied upon
against the petitioner.

II.
The
report
of
the
authority/board/university
issuing
the
academic
certificates
shall
also
be
appended to the show cause notice.

III.
The
concerned
board/university shall cooperate in the
proceedings and send a report after due
authentication
of
the
educational
certificates of the petitioner.

IV. The controversy shall be
decided within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.

The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above."
11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
769

6. Despite the clear directions of this
Court, respondent no.2, on 10.02.2025,
obtained a verification report from the
Secretary,
U.P.
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad, alleging that the petitioners
TET certificate (Roll No.05055502, Sr.
No.4074328)
was
forged,
however
petitioner had never submitted any such
certificate since her appointment pre-dates
the TET requirement. The document was
not required to be submitted as the
Institution, being a minority Institution, is
exempted from such requirements under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
The respondent no.2, thereafter, issued an
order dated 25.02.2025, declaring the
petitioners employment as void ab
initio and placed the petitioner under
suspension
relying
upon
the
TET
verification
report
dated
10.02.2025,
without granting any opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, which was in gross
violation of the order dated 20.12.2024
passed in the Writ Petition No.19101 of
2024 (Deepa Magleena vs. District Basic
Education Officer and Ors.).

7.
On
01.03.2025,
respondent
no.3/Manager of the Institution, suspended
the petitioner from her services, primarily
due to pressure from respondent no.1.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that on 01.03.2025, the petitioner
affirmed her appointment in the year 1991,
her exemption from TET certificate under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India
and full compliance with all directions. The
Manager of the Institution, vide letter dated
29.02.2025 addressed to the District Basic
Education Officer, informed about the
appointment of the petitioner in the year
1991, detailed about the mala fide conduct
of the respondents. It has been submitted
by learned counsel for the petitioner that
due to a clerical error, date of the above
letter
was
wrongly
mentioned
as
29.02.2025.

9. A contempt petition No.2199 of
2025 (Deepa Magleena Vs. Vimlesh
Kumar, District Basic Education Officer
And 2
Others)
was
filed
for
non
compliance with the Courts order dated
20.12.2024, in which notices were issued to
respondent no.2, after which the respondent
no.2 got news published in newspapers in
order to intimidate the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the entire action of the
respondents is not only illegal but also mala
fide. It is pointed out that while the names
of other persons like Kavita Arya and
Simple Vishnoi, whose names finds place
in the complaint, no action was taken
against them, only the petitioner has been
selectively targeted.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondents acted in an
arbitrary manner whereby the salary and
payment of the petitioner was stopped
during
pendency
of
the
inquiry,
subsequently, the petitioner was suspended
by order dated 25.02.2025 without any
valid evidence and the salary of the
petitioner from June 2024 till February
2025 has also not been paid.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondents have acted in a
mala fide manner by stopping the salary of
the petitioner, suspending her from service
ignoring her track record and remarkable
service in an illegal manner, which is bad
in the eyes of law. He further submits that
the order impugned has been passed in
violation
of
Article
30(1)
of
the
Constitution of India, which guarantees
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
minority Institutions (aided or unaided),
autonomy
in
teacher
appointments.
Reliance is placed upon a judgment of
Apex Court passed in the case of TMA Pai
Foundation vs. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481, wherein it was held that
the government aid does not dilute the right
as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution of India. He has further relied
upon a judgment passed in the case of
Pramati Educational Trust Vs. Union of
India, (2014) 8 SCC 1, para-47, which
holds that under Right to Education Act,
the TET requirement is inapplicable to the
minority institutions as per Section 23 of
the Act.

13. The aforesaid legal position has
been reaffirmed by the Madras High Court
in Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.
Selvarani, decided on 22.01.2024 which
went to the extent of striking down the TET
mandate for minority Institutions. Thus, the
petitioner's appointment in the year 1991
and her merit-based retention in 2002 are
sacrosanct, and the obsessive fixation on
TET,
despite
clear
legal
exemptions
amounts to a constitutional travesty.

14. The impugned order has been
passed without considering the fact that St.
Joseph Girls Junior High School is a
minority aided institution under Article
30(1) of the Constitution of India, which
enjoys constitutional autonomy to appoint
and
manage
its
teachers
without
interference from the State. The Honble
Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad
St. Xaviers College Vs. State of
Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717, Para-35, held
that this autonomy extends to teacher
appointments, and government aid does not
dilute this right. The BSAs interference,
by imposing the TET qualification and
declaring the petitioners employment
void on 25.02.2025, infringes upon this
sacrosanct
right,
as
the
BSA
lacks
jurisdiction over appointments in minority
Institutions.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a show cause notice dated
27.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner as
well as to the Institution and a reply was
submitted on 31.01.2025 by the school. A
very short time was given to the petitioner
to submit her reply to the show cause
notice i.e. from 28.01.2025 to 31.01.2025.
A detailed letter dated 18.03.2025 was
submitted by the petitioner to the School
authorities, which was also sent to the
BSA, Moradabad and the Finance &
Accounts
Officer,
Basic
Education,
Moradabad. Despite this respondent no.2,
without considering the legal position has
passed
the
order
dated
25.02.2025
declaring the petitioners appointment as
void ab initio and ordered suspension
of
the
petitioners
services
without
conducting any disciplinary enquiry and as
such they should have directed the School
authorities to conduct a proper enquiry and
take necessary steps. There is no basis to
the show cause notice and as such no
departmental enquiry has been conducted
by the respondent authority before passing
the impugned order that too has been
passed without application of mind. No
charge sheet has been served to the
petitioner and the impugned orders are
vitiated by law. The School authorities
have submitted a reply to the show cause
notice supporting the petitioners claim,
however the respondent no.2 is harassing
the petitioner in an arbitrary manner.

16. The petitioner has never submitted
the alleged TET certificate as claimed by
the respondent authorities, and the burden
lies upon the respondents to establish
11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
771
which certificate they are claiming to be
forged upon verification. The petitioner
was neither provided with a copy of the
alleged certificate that was verified nor
with the verification report along with the
show cause notice so that she could defend
all the allegations

17. Certain facts have been brought on
record by learned counsel for the petitioner
by filing of a supplementary affidavit.

18. A show cause notice dated
27.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner as
well as to the Institution/respondent no.3
and a reply to the said notice was submitted
on 31.01.2025 by the Institution. In the
reply submitted by the Manager of the
Institution,
it
has
been
specifically
mentioned that there was no requirement of
passing the U.P.T.E.T. at the time of
appointment of the petitioner who was
appointed on 01.07.1991. All documents
placed by the petitioner were scrutinized by
the District Basic Education Officer and the
Selection Committee, after which the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
was
approved.
The
appointment
of
the
petitioner has been made in accordance
with law, as she was fully eligible and
qualified for the same.

19. A detailed letter dated 18.03.2025
was written by the petitioner to the School
authorities and a copy of the same was also
forwarded to the District Basic Education
Officer and Finance & Accounts Officer,
Moradabad, wherein it has been mentioned
that the petitioner was selected in a
minority Institution which is protected
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India. She has further submitted that she
was appointed in the year 2015, in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations
applicable at the relevant point of time,
which was prior to the enforcement of the
Right to Education Act, wherein eligibility
of TET was prescribed, therefore, declaring
her appointment illegal, particularly in a
minority Institution, is arbitrary.

20.
Despite
the
aforesaid
facts,
respondent no.2 illegally declared the
appointment of the petitioner as void ab
initio by order dated 25.02.2025 and
petitioner was placed under suspension
without
conducting
any
disciplinary
enquiry whereas they should have instead
directed the School authorities to conduct a
proper enquiry as they were the ones, who
had appointed the petitioner in accordance
with law.

21. There was no basis for issuing the
show cause notice as issued to the
petitioner as no inquiry has been conducted
by
the
respondent
authorities
before
passing the order impugned. No charge
sheet has been served upon the petitioner,
therefore, the impugned order stands
vitiated in law. The school authorities have
supported the petitioners claim that her
appointment was made in accordance with
law, ignoring which the order impugned
has been passed in an arbitrary manner.
The petitioner has specifically denied the
submission of any alleged TET certificate
as claimed by the respondents authorities,
therefore, it is upon them to prove that the
certificate they are claiming to be forged
and that it has been declared so after
verification. The petitioner has neither been
provided with a copy of the certificate
which was verified nor with the verification
report along with the show cause notice.

22. On the aforesaid grounds, the
impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and bad
in the eyes of law and, therefore, is liable to
be set aside.
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has placed on record the
advertisement pursuant to which the
petitioner was appointed in the year 2015
which mentions the required qualifications
of U.P.T.E.T and C.T.E.T. as issued by the
Manager of the Institution. The same has
been annexed as Pages-23-24 of the
affidavit filed on behalf of the Joint
Director of Education, 12th Division,
Moradabad. A letter dated 28.05.2015 of
the petitioner has been annexed as
addressed to the Manager of the Institution
which was her application for the post of
Assistant
Teacher
pursuant
to
the
advertisement dated 25.05.2015 published
in Dainik Samachar and Hindustan. In the
said application, she has mentioned about
her educational qualifications as High
School, Intermediate, B.A., B.Ed, I.G.T.
and T.E.T. All the relevant certificates have
also
been
annexed
along
with
the
application.

24. The minutes of the Selection
Committee dated 11.06.2015, showing that
the petitioner appeared for an interview,
have also been annexed along with the
affidavit. The records as maintained by the
Committee on the date of interview have
also been annexed where, in one of the
columns shows 91 marks for T.E.T. for the
petitioner. The Institution had also sent a
letter to the District Basic Education
Officer for approval of her appointment
along with her educational certificates as
well as the documents related to her
selection wherein the application of the
petitioner has also been annexed.

25. The District Basic Education Officer,
by letter dated 19.06.2015, approved the
appointment of the petitioner wherein the
educational qualifications is shown as B.A.,
B.Ed., U.P.T.E.T. passed and her date of birth
has been shown as 19.09.1971, accordingly,
an appointment letter has been issued on
26.06.2015 and the petitioner joined her duties
on 01.07.2015.

26. The Prapatra-(Kha) filled for the
petitioner by the Institution also shows her
date of birth to be 19.09.1971. Details of the
educational qualifications are as follows:-
(High
School
1987
Second
Division),
(Intermediate
1991
Second
Division),
[Graduation 1994 Second Division (Hindi)],
[B.ed 1996 Second Division (Hindi)] and
(T.E.T. 2001).

27. Despite the letter of District Basic
Education Officer, the Management did not
provide the details of the appointment of the
petitioner for which a notice dated 25.06.2022
was issued. Subsequently on 28.08.2024 the
Mandaliya
Sahayak
Shiksha
Nideshak,
(Basic), Moradabad, issued another notice to
the Management to provide details of
appointment of the petitioner. Letter has been
written by the then Manager on 30.08.2024
requesting for attestation of his signatures in
order provide details of selection of the
petitioner. On 07.09.2024 letter has been
issued by Mandaliya Sahayak Shiksha
Nideshak (Basic), Moradabad to the District
Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, directing
him to complete the inquiry.

28. Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that when the petitioner approached
this Court by means of filing Writ A No.19101
of 2024, the Court noticing that the salary of
the petitioner could not be withheld without
holding proper inquiry. The Court disposed of
the petition vide order dated 20.12.2024 and
remitting the matter to the respondents
authorities with the following directions:-

"I. The petitioner shall be given a
show cause notice along with relevant
11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
773
documents proposed to be relied upon
against the petitioner.

II.
The
report
of
the
authority/board/university
issuing
the
academic
certificates
shall
also
be
appended to the show cause notice.

III.
The
concerned
board/university shall cooperate in the
proceedings and send a report after due
authentication
of
the
educational
certificates of the petitioner.

IV. The controversy shall be
decided within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.

The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above."

29. Accordingly, a show cause notice
along with relevant documents was issued
to
the
petitioner,
a
report
of
the
authority/Board/University
issuing
academic certificates was also appended to
the show cause notice and after considering
the reply as well as the report of the Board
which found the TET certificate of the
petitioner as forged, recommendation has
been made for declaring the appointment of
the petitioner as void ab initio. As the
Manager was not cooperating, therefore,
the respondents were left with no option
but to appoint the Authorized Controller for
taking
necessary
action
against
the
petitioner.

30. Emphasizing upon the reply dated
18.03.2025 as submitted by the petitioner,
learned counsel for the respondents submits
that there was no specific denial by the
petitioner that she has not submitted any
T.E.T. certificate. The only fact which has
been
mentioned
that
there
was
no
requirement of T.E.T. at the time of her
appointment under the relevant Act. The
aforesaid by itself goes to show that the
petitioner has obtained appointment by
placing a forged T.E.T. certificate which
was required as per the advertisement
issued by the Manager of the Institution.
Thus, there is no illegality in declaration of
the appointment of the petitioner as null
and void.

31. In the case of Kamlesh Kumar
Nirankari vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others,
passed in Writ A No.20140 of 2023,
decided on 25.08.2025, the Court observed
that in case of any appointment obtained
through
forged
documents,
such
an
appointment is illegal and void ab
initio, therefore, no detailed inquiry under
Article 311 of Constitution of India or
under
the
UP
Government
Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, is
required.

32.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, further submits that there is no
illegality and infirmity in the order
impugned. He further submits that no
ground has been taken that the petitioner
should have been absorbed after the
coming of the Institution into grand-in-aid
list and she had participated in the fresh
selection
process
in
view
of
the
advertisement of the year 2015 and was
accordingly
appointed,
therefore,
any
objections as raised at this stage has no legs
to stand.

33.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents further submits that Institution,
namely, St. Joseph Girls Junior High
School, Moradabad is Junior High School
recognized under provisions of the U.P.
Basic Education Act, 1972 and Institution
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was put into grant-in-aid from the State
Government and the salary of the teachers
and other employees of the Institution are
being paid under the provisions of U.P.
Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978
as well as the U.P. recognized Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978 is applicable.

34. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher of Hindi subject (Primary) in the
Institution, which is a minority Institution
established under Article 30 (1) of
Constitution
of
India
and
after
recommendation
of
the
selection
committee, after approval of District Basic
Education
Officer,
Moradabad,
dated
19.06.2015, an appointment letter dated
26.06.2015 was issued by the Manager of
the Institution, accordingly the petitioner
took charge on 01.07.2015 in the aforesaid
Institution. At the time of selection, the
petitioner
submitted
her
educational
certificates i.e. High School, Intermediate,
Graduation and U.P.T.E.T. Certificate2011 (Upper Primary Level) in which she
allegedly secured 91 marks.

35. A complaint was made before the
Additional Director of Education (Basic),
12th Region, Moradabad and after an
enquiry into the allegations made in the
said
complaint,
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, Moradabad issued an
order dated 25.06.2024, withholding the
current salary of the petitioner and seeking
an explanation from the Manager of the
Institution, because as per the verification
from the board, the petitioner had obtained
only
63
marks
in
the
U.P.T.E.T.
Examination-2011 meaning thereby, she
has failed in U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2011.

36. The District Basic Education
Officer,
Moradabad
made
a
recommendation dated 22.08.2024 for the
appointment of an authorized controller in
the Institution to the Divisional Assistant
Education, Director (Basic), Moradabad. A
show-cause notice dated 28.08.2024 has
been issued to the Manager of the
Institution by the Divisional Assistant
Education Director (Basic), Moradabad to
submit an explanation as per the showcause notice, who has sent a letter dated
07.09.2024 to the District Basic Education
Officer, Moradabad to attest the signature
of the Manager, because the subsequent
Manager took the charge of the aforesaid
Institution, as per reply of the manager
dated 30.08.2024. In the meantime, the
petitioner approached before this Court by
filing Writ-A No. 19101 of 2024 (Smt.
Deepa Magleena Versus State of U.P. and
others)
challenging
the
order
dated
25.06.2024 by which the salary of the
petitioner has been withheld and the High
Court disposed of the writ petition vide
order dated 20.12.2024 with a direction to
decide the controversy within a period of
three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

37. Pursuant to the aforesaid order,
respondent no. 2/District Basic Education
Officer, Moradabad issued a letter dated
27.01.2025
to
the
Secretary,
Basic
Education, U.P. Prayagraj to verify the
educational certificates of petitioner and in
pursuance of the same an enquiry was done
and Secretary, Basic Education, U.P.
Prayagraj verified the said documents and
sent a verification report dated 10.02.2025
to
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Moradabad wherein it was found that the
petitioner had secured only 63 marks out of
150 marks in U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2011
bearing
Roll
No.
05055502,
Sl.
11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
775
No.4074328, meaning thereby that she has
not passed the said examination, but the
aforesaid certificate was annexed by the
petitioner at the time of the appointment,
showed that she has passed the examination
securing 91 marks.

38. A show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner as well as the Manager of the
Institution on 27.01.2025 to submit their
reply. Thereafter, the petitioner as well as
Manager have submitted their reply on
31.01.2025 and 18.03.2025 respectively.
As the reply submitted by the petitioner as
well as the Manager of the Institution were
found unsatisfactory, therefore, respondent
no.2/Basic Education Officer, Moradabad
again issued a letter dated 25.02.2025 to the
Manager of said institution to take concrete
action against the petitioner because the
certificate of the U.P.T.E.T. Examination2011 was to be forged as per the
verification report dated 10.02.2025 issued
by the Board of High School and
Secondary Education, U.P., Prayagraj.

39. When no action was taken by the
said institution against the petitioner,
respondent
no.2
issued
letters
dated
07.02.2025
and
03.06.2025
to
the
Divisional, Assistant Education Director
(Basic),
12th
Division,
Moradabad,
requesting therein to appoint an authorized
controller in the institution as per provision
of Section 6 of the U.P. Junior High
Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and other Employees) Act, 1978 (in short
Act 1978).

40. Thereafter a show cause notice
dated 12.06.2025 was issued to the
Manager of the institution under Section
6(2) of the Act, 1978, but the Manager of
the institution did not submit a reply due to
which Authorized Controller has been
appointed on 19.06.2025 as per the relevant
provisions i.e. Section 6 of the Act, 1978,
which is applicable to the minority
institution
as
well
as
non-minority
institutions, because the present institution
is recognized under provisions of the U.P.
Basic Education Act, 1972 as well as U.P.
recognized Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers) Rule, 1978 and the
aforesaid institution was put into grant-inaid list from the State Government and the
salary of the teachers and other employees
of the institution are being paid under the
provisions of the Act, 1978.

1. Pursuant to the order dated
20.12.2024
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.19101 of 2024 (Deepa Magleena
Versus
State
of
U.P.
and
others),
respondent no.3 namely the manager of the
said institution has not passed the final
orders regarding the cancellation of the
appointment of the petitioner because as
per the verification report dated 10.02.2025
issued
by
the
Board,
the
aforesaid
U.P.T.E.T.
Certificate-2011
of
the
petitioner has been found to be forged
document, and the petitioner has got
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher on the basis of the said forged and
fabricated U.P.T.E.T. certificate, thus the
appointment of petitioner is void abinitio.

42. Despite notices being issued to the
Manager, no final orders were passed,
therefore, the respondents were left with no
option but to appoint an Authorized
Controller for compliance with the Courts
order.

43. Considering the provisions of
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the U.P. Junior
High Schools (Payment of Salaries of
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978,
read with provisions of Sections 23, 24 and
25 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools
(Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rule,
1978. Appropriate orders have been passed
in compliance with the Courts order
dated 19.08.2025 in Writ A No.10843 of
2025.

44. There is no illegality in the order
impugned or in the conduct of the
respondents while issuing notice to the
Manager or appointing the Authorized
Controller in view of the directions of this
Court as well as the relevant provisions.
Thus, no interference is required and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

45. The respondent no.3, Manager, St.
Joseph Girls Junior High School Civil
Lines, Moradabad, does not propose to file
a counter affidavit and has instead filed
objections to the personal affidavit as filed
on behalf of other respondents, thus
supporting the case of the petitioner. He
has also not disputed about the documents
filed by the learned counsel for the State in
the personal affidavit of the Joint Director
of Education, which has been treated as
counter affidavit.

46. Learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that the Institution in question
is a semi-aided minority Institution, therefore,
it is entitled to the protection guaranteed
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India. The Honble Supreme Court, in the
landmark
judgement
of
T.M.A.
Pai
Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8
SCC 481, held that while the State may
impose conditions while granting aid, such
conditions must be reasonable and cannot
transgress
the
autonomy
of
minority
institutions in matters of administration.

47. The Apex Court in the case of
Diocese of Varanasi Education Vs. State of
U.P. reaffirmed that a regulatory measures
imposed by the State must be confined to
ensuring educational excellence and cannot
permitted to erode the fundamental right of
minorities to administer their institutions.
Although, the Institution is subject to
applicable financial and service-related
regulations, the same cannot be applied in a
manner that dilutes its constitutionally
guaranteed autonomy.

48.