# Devendra Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 827
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-15
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 10185 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-46130
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service law - Termination - No
Disciplinary Inquiry - TET Certificate, 2011
found to be obtained by fraud - Effect -
Held,
no
doubt
if
a
duly
appointed
employee's services that are governed by a
statutory tenure are to be terminated on the
ground
of
misconduct,
disciplinary
proceedings, in accordance with law, are a
sine qua non - But, it may not be so in a
case where the employment is secured
through utter fraud - Fraud vitiates all
solemn transaction - Any transaction that is
the result of a fraud is a nullity - Fraud is
required to be undone, wherever and
whenever it is found - The petitioner's
appointment found nullity. (Para 21 and 22)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. Devendra Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
827

19. The writ petition deserves to be
allowed and is consequently allowed in
terms of the directions issued hereinabove.

20. Copy of the order downloaded
from the official website of this Court shall
be treated as certified copy of this order.
----------
(2021)01ILR A827
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 10185 of 2020

Devendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravi Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service law - Termination - No
Disciplinary Inquiry - TET Certificate, 2011
found to be obtained by fraud - Effect -
Held,
no
doubt
if
a
duly
appointed
employee's services that are governed by a
statutory tenure are to be terminated on the
ground
of
misconduct,
disciplinary
proceedings, in accordance with law, are a
sine qua non - But, it may not be so in a
case where the employment is secured
through utter fraud - Fraud vitiates all
solemn transaction - Any transaction that is
the result of a fraud is a nullity - Fraud is
required to be undone, wherever and
whenever it is found - The petitioner's
appointment found nullity. (Para 21 and 22)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner, Devendra Singh has
impugned the orders dated 02.11.2019,
15.11.2019 and 31.07.2020, all passed by
the District Inspector of Schools, Basti,
which, in effect, put an end to his services
as an Assistant Teacher (Trained) in the
attached Primary Section of Sri Desh Raj
Narang
Dayanand
Inter
College,
Walterganj, Basti.

2. The impugned orders have come to
be made in the background of facts and
circumstances hereinafter detailed : Sri
Desh Raj Narang Dayanand Inter College,
Walterganj, Basti is a recognized and aided
institution, teaching scholars from Class I
to Class XII. The institution is governed by
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Regulations
framed
thereunder.
The
institution
aforesaid
(for
short,
''the
institution') is in receipt of a permanent
grant-in-aid from the State Government.
Salaries to its teachers and other employees
are paid out of State fund under the Uttar
Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate
Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and others Employees) Act, 1971 (for short,
''Act of 1971'). There is no issue about the
fact that the teachers working against
sanctioned posts in the attached primary
section of the institution also receive their
salaries from the State Exchequer, under
the Act of 1971.

3. There were five sanctioned posts of
Assistant Teachers in the attached primary
section of the institution. Shorn of
unnecessary detail, all these posts fell
vacant at the relevant point of time and
were advertised by the Committee of
Management
of
the
institution,
after
necessary permission granted for the
purpose by the District Inspector of
Schools,
Basti
by
his
order
dated
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.07.2014. There is hardly any cavil about
the validating of the selection process
through which the petitioner, and the four
other selectees alongside him, came to be
appointed to the five posts of assistant
teachers in the primary section of the
institution.

4. What figures as a prominent step in
the process of the petitioner's appointment
is an order dated 20.08.2014, by which
financial approval was granted to his
appointment,
besides
the
four
other
assistant teachers, about whom there is no
issue here. Post approval of the petitioner's
recruitment by the District Inspector of
Schools, the Manager of the institution
issued a letter of appointment in favour of
the petitioner, also on 20.08.2014. The
petitioner joined service on 21.08.2014.
There is also no dispute inter partes that the
petitioner, after joining with the institution
as an Assistant Teacher, discharged his
duties all through.

5. It appears that a complaint dated
14.04.2019 was laid against the petitioner
by Mr. Sanjay Pratap Jaiswal, the Hon'ble
Member,
Legislative
Assembly
from
Rudhauli, Basti to the Joint Director of
Education, Basti Region, Basti, saying that
four candidates appointed to the attached
primary section of the institution did not
possess the requisite U.P. T.E.T. (Primary
Level) qualification, essential for a valid
appointment.
The
Hon'ble
Member,
Legislative Assembly pointed out that one
Chandrakesh Pratap Singh had repeatedly
complained in the matter, but no inquiry
into the validity of appointments had been
made.

6. The Joint Director of Education
took cognizance of the M.L.A.'s complaint.
He appointed the Finance and Accounts
Officer to ascertain the truth of the
allegations carried in the complaint. The
Inquiry Officer appointed by the Joint
Director of Education, submitted a report
dated 22.07.2019 to the Joint Director. It
appears that the Inquiry Officer found
substance in the M.L.A.'s complaint against
the petitioner as well as the other teachers,
about whom there is no issue here. The
Joint Director of Education, considering the
fact that the validity of the petitioner's
qualifications was seriously in doubt, but at
the same time, the inquiry before him was
no more than a preliminary inquiry,
directed that all testimonials relating to the
petitioner - educational, vocational and
others relating to eligibility, be subjected to
a verification, both online and offline, and
if these be found not verifiable, necessary
proceedings be taken to cancel his
appointment and to stop further payment of
his salary, all to be done after affording the
petitioner opportunity of hearing.

7. An inquiry was undertaken into the
validity
of
the
petitioner's
training
certificates through a formal inquiry
initiated for the purpose by the District
Inspector of Schools, Basti. What appears
from a reading of the order of the District
Inspector of Schools dated 02.11.2019 is
that in the inquiry, the petitioner was put to
notice a number of times, but he chose not
to appear. On the basis of verification of
records undertaken by the District Inspector
of Schools with the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj
(for short, ''the Board'), the District
Inspector of Schools recorded a finding to
the effect that the U.P. Teachers Eligibility
Test (Primary Level) certificate claimed by
the petitioner, bearing Roll No. 09003193
related to a certain Mohd. Shamim son of
Sri Sanaullah, but not to the petitioner. He
concluded that the petitioner had not passed
1 All. Devendra Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
829
the T.E.T. (Primary Level) Examination,
relating to which he had produced a
certificate issued by the Board. It was also
held that the Manager/ Principal of the
institution presented the papers for the
petitioner's appointment to the office of the
District Inspector of Schools and the then
incumbent District Inspector of Schools
granted approval without undertaking a
verification of the petitioner's testimonials.
The District Inspector of Schools, by his
order
dated
02.11.2019,
made
a
recommendation
that
the
petitioner's
services be terminated. Acting on his
recommendations, the District Inspector of
Schools passed a separate order dated
15.11.2019, cancelling the approval earlier
granted to the petitioner's appointment,
vide order dated 20.08.2014.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated
02.11.2019 passed by the District Inspector
of Schools and the earlier order dated
27.07.2019 passed by the Joint Director of
Education, the petitioner instituted Writ - A
No.2049 of 2020 before this Court,
impugning those orders. One of the
contentions urged in the last mentioned writ
petition
was
that
the
orders,
under
challenge there, were passed without
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
This Court, by an order dated 10.02.2020,
disposed of Writ - A No.2049 of 2020 in
the following terms:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case
and without entering into merits of the case, this
petition is disposed of directing the concerned
authorities to pass appropriate orders in the
matter of petitioner strictly in accordance with
law expeditiously and preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order before
him."

9. Now, in compliance with this
Court's order dated 10.02.2020 in Writ - A
No.2049 of 2020, the District Inspector of
Schools undertook a wholesome inquiry,
even though the petitioner did not submit a
properly drawn up representation in aid of
this Court's order. The District Inspector of
Schools
fixed
dates
in
the
matter,
apparently with notice to the parties, that is
to say, the Management of the institution
and the petitioner, both. The dates fixed
were adjourned on more than one occasion.
It figures on record that on 27.06.2020, the
petitioner stated his case before the District
Inspector of Schools through a written
statement thereof. It was made out in the
representation that the petitioner's roll
number was 90904646 and that he had
passed the U.P. T.E.T. Examination, 2011
under the said roll number. The District
Inspector of School, on an inquiry into the
records, noticed that the petitioner had filed
his T.E.T. (Primary Level) Certificate
relating to the Examination of 2011 bearing
Roll No. 09003193 (Serial No. 3133698),
regarding which the District Inspector of
Schools had addressed a memo dated
09.10.2019 to the Secretary of the Board
for verification. The Secretary of the Board
,through his memo dated 16.10.2019, had
certified that Roll No. 09003193, the serial
number of which was 3133698, related to
one Mohd. Shamim son of Sanaullah, an
OBC scholar, who had passed the said
examination in the year 2011. From this
report, the District Inspector of Schools
concluded that the petitioner had not passed
his T.E.T. (Primary Level) Examination at
all. He recorded a finding that the
petitioner, Devendra Singh, had presented
the T.E.T. (Primary Level) Examination
Certificate, bearing Roll No. 09003193,
relating to the Examination of the year
2011 at the time that he staked his
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidature for the post, which was not
valid.

10. The District Inspector of Schools
went on to record a finding that in Writ - A
No.2049 of 2020, which the petitioner
filed, he had annexed a different T.E.T.
Examination Certificate for the year 2011,
where the roll number indicated was
90904646, bearing Serial No. 3133698. The
District Inspector of Schools has remarked
that it is this different certificate which the
petitioner now relies upon in support of his
case. The District Inspector of Schools has
recorded the fact that upon the said
difference in the certificates, he had sent
the certificate, now relied upon by the
petitioner, for verification to the Secretary
of the Board, vide his memo dated
05.07.2020. The Secretary, on the basis of
the Board's records, through his memo
dated 28.07.2020, had returned information
to the effect that the T.E.T. Certificate,
bearing Roll No. 90904646 and Serial
No.3133698,
had
led
him
nowhere,
inasmuch as there was no Roll No.
90904646 available on the Board's website
for the relevant examination during the
year concerned.

11. The District Inspector of Schools,
therefore, concluded that these facts clearly
show that the petitioner does not hold a
valid
T.E.T.
Certificate.
He
has,
particularly, remarked that the fact that the
T.E.T. Examination Certificate relating to
the year 2011 relied upon by the petitioner
at the time he staked his candidature and
the one that he has annexed to the writ
petition, both bear the same serial number,
that is to say, 3133698, but varying roll
numbers
make
the
incongruence
irreconcilable. The District Inspector of
Schools, therefore, recorded a further
finding that both the T.E.T. certificates are
got up documents, presented by the
petitioner to secure an unfair advantage.
The
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
therefore,
rejected
the
petitioner's
representation
by
his
order
dated
31.07.2020.

12. Now, the petitioner challenges the
last mentioned order of the District
Inspector of Schools, dated 31.07.2020 as
the earlier orders dated 02.11.2019 and
15.11.2019, also passed by the District
Inspector of Schools.

13. When this petition came on for
admission, much was made by Mr. Ravi
Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner about the fact that the petitioner
had not been given due opportunity of
hearing, to which he was entitled. It was
urged by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner was, after
all, a duly selected and appointed teacher
against a sanctioned post. An inquiry,
therefore, ought to have been held by
issuing him a charge sheet, where evidence
ought to have been led.

14. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay,
learned State Law Officer appearing on
behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6, on the
other hand submitted that it is not a case
where the petitioner's services have been
terminated for some misconduct, rather it is
the validity of his initial appointment that is
beset by fraud vitiating the appointment at
its inception. Mr. Upadhyay further submits
that an appointment secured through fraud
is a nullity. If there was any denial of
opportunity, that has been made good under
orders of this Court, when the District
Inspector of Schools has undertaken a
wholesome review of the short issue,
whether the petitioner holds a valid
Teachers Eligibility Test Certificate from
1 All. Devendra Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
831
the Board. It is urged by Mr. Upadhyay that
in an inquiry conforming to the principles
of natural justice and fair play done in the
petitioner's presence, the District Inspector
of Schools, on the basis of relevant
material, has held that there is absolutely
no Teachers Eligibility Test Certificate ever
earned by the petitioner to support his
candidature.
The
T.E.T.
Examination
Certificate for the year 2011, relied upon by
the petitioner - the one that was lodged by
him at the time of selection and the one
appended to the writ petition are both
bogus and fraudulent documents, never
issued
by
the
Board.
In
these
circumstances, Mr. Upadhyay, learned State
Law Officer says that this is not a case
where disciplinary proceedings are required
to be undertaken. It is a case where the
petitioner's initial retention in service is
void.

15. Looking to the issue involved in
the petition, which is all about the fact
whether the petitioner did earn a Teachers
Eligibility Test Certificate from the Board
in the year 2011 or not at all, this Court
suggested to the parties that the fact may be
verified from the Board before this Court.
The learned Counsel for both parties agreed
to the above course of action. Accordingly,
this Court has proceeded to determine this
writ petition by consent of parties at the
admission stage without going through the
formal process of admission, exchange of
affidavits and a regular hearing.

16. To the above end, a number of
orders were passed by the Court, requiring
the Board to disclose their stand about the
validity of the petitioner's certificate in
question. Each time, the Board came up
with a categorical stand that the petitioner
has not earned the certificate in question in
the 2011 from the Board at all. Most of the
orders that this Court passed, requiring the
Secretary of the Board to verify the fact,
were made in the face of immense
confidence that the petitioner displayed
during the course of proceedings about the
genuineness of his T.E.T. Certificate, 2011.
It would be apposite to refer various orders
that were passed by this Court. On
25.11.2020, the following order was made:

"Let
the
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad, U.P. at Prayagraj represented
through its Secretary, respondent no. 5
submit a report whether T.E.T. Examination
Certificate for the year 2011 bearing Roll
No. 09003193 and Serial No. 3133698 has
been issued by them in the name of
Devendra Singh S/o Kalika Singh.

It will be specifically indicated in the
report whether this certificate has been
issued by the respondent-Board and is
available in their records. The report will
bear reference not just to the Board's
website but their original records as well.

Let the report be submitted on or
before 01.12.2020.

Lay this matter as fresh again on
01.12.2020.

Let this order be communicated to the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at
Prayagraj through its Secretary by the Joint
Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."

17. Again on 01.12.2020, the
following order was passed:

"It is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in the order
of this Court dated 25.11.2020, the roll
number relating to the petitioner for the
T.E.T. Examination and the serial number
have been mentioned in error, the error
being the same as led the board to earlier
response incorrectly. He points out that the
T.E.T. certificate for the examination of
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2011 that he submitted is on record at page
number 44 of the paper book. It is the said
certificate that is required to be verified
from the original records of the board.

The Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad, U.P.
at
Prayagraj
represented
through
its
Secretary, respondent no. 5 shall submit a
report
whether
T.E.T.
Examination
Certificate for the U.P. Teachers Eligibility
Test, 2011 (Primary Level) bearing Roll
No. 90904646 (General Category) and
Serial No. 3133698 has been issued by
them in the name of Devendra Singh s/o
Kalika Singh.

It will be specifically indicated in the
report whether this certificate has been
issued by the respondent-Board and is
available in their records. The report will
bear reference not just to the Board's
website but their original records as well.

Let
a
report
be
submitted
by
07.12.2020.

Lay this matter as fresh again on
07.12.2020.

Let this order be communicated to the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad, U.P. at
Prayagraj through its Secretary by the Joint
Registrar (compliance) today."

18. Still again on 07.12.2020, the
following order was made:

"The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj, is directed to
appear in person day after tomorrow at
02:00 pm and produce the original
records
relating
to
U.P.
Teachers
Eligibility Test-2011 (Primary Level),
bearing
Roll
No.90904646
(General
Category), and Serial No.3133698. A
hard copy of the roll number records
carrying serials of the roll numbers in the
vicinity of the mentioned roll number
shall also be produced. The records
produced howsoever, bulky shall be a
wholesome
record
and
not
some
truncated part of it.

Lay as fresh again on 09.12.2020 at
02:00 pm.

Let this order be communicated to
the
Secretary,
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj, by the Joint
Registrar (Compliance) today."

19. In compliance with the order
dated 07.12.2020, the Secretary of the
Board appeared before the Court and took
a definite stand that Roll No. 90904646
relating to the Teachers Eligibility Test,
2011 is a non-existent roll number, which
is not there in the records. Mr. Ravi
Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner was equally insistent that his
client did appear in the T.E.T. Certificate
Examination, 2011 held by the Board
under Roll No. 90904646. It was urged
with much emphasis by Mr. Singh that
whatever records have been produced by
the Board, are not complete with Roll No.
90904646
tucked
away
elsewhere,
deliberately hidden from the eyes of the
Court. In those circumstances, this Court
issued a Commission on 09.12.2020 to
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Allahabad to undertake a wholesome
inspection of the Board's record, relating
to the T.E.T. Certificate Examination,
2011 and determine, whether Roll No.
90904646 is there in the records of the
Board and if it is there, the name of the
candidate, to whom it relates. The
personal presence of the Secretary of the
Board was exempted. The order that this
Court made on 09.12.2020 is eloquent
and extracted below:

"The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, has
appeared before the Court and he states that
Roll no.90904646 relating to Teachers
1 All. Devendra Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
833
Eligibility Test-2011 does not exist on the
record of the Board. It is a non-existing roll
number relative to the said Examination.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner insists
that the petitioner has appeared validly
under roll no.90904646 at the examination
in question and that he has been granted a
TET Certificate by the Board, which the
Board are wrongfully disowning. The
Board have produced a tabulation register,
which does not carry roll no.90904646.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner
says that this is not a complete record and
the said roll number may be elsewhere in
the records of the Board. The Board are
attempting to hide from the Court's eyes the
complete record, in particular, the one that
carries the petitioner's roll number, that is,
90904646.

Since this issue is one which cannot be
efficaciously resolved on the basis of the
affidavits, this Court considers it expedient to
issue a commission to the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to inspect the
records of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad,
Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj after office hours of
the Board on 11.12.2020, and submit a report
to this Court doing a thorough inspection as
to whether this roll no.90904646 relating to
the TET-2011 is there in the records of the
Board, and if there, the name of the
candidate, to whom it relates.

The learned Commission/ the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad shall submit
his report to this Court by 15.12.2020.

The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, who has
appeared in person and produced the record,
need not appear any further. His appearance
is exempted.

List this matter on 15.12.2020 in the
additional cause list along with the Chief
Judicial Magistrate's report.

Let this order be communicated to the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Allahabad
through the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Allahabad
and
the
Secretary,
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad,
Uttar
Pradesh, Prayagraj by the Joint Registrar
(Compliance) within 24 hours."

20. In compliance with this Court's
order
dated
09.12.2020,
Mr.
Neeraj
Kushwaha, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad undertook a very
meticulous and industrious enterprise to
inspect the Board's record and bring out
truth, where the stand on both sides had
placed the Court to tread on unsure ground.
It would be unrequited justice if Mr. Neeraj
Kushwaha's report submitted along with a
memo dated 14.10.2020 is not extracted for
all its worth. The material part of his report
reads:

"1. रिट संख्या 10106/2020 देवेन्द्र ससंह बनाम
उत्ति प्रदेश िाज्य एवं छः अन्य सदनााँसित
09.12.2020 में मुझे िमीशन जािी ििते हुए
माध्यसमि सशक्षा परिषद िे असिलेखो िी जााँच इस
आशय से ििने हेतु सनदेसशत सिया गया सि क्या
अनुक्रमाांक सांख्या 90904646 जो टी.ई.टी. 2011
से सम्बन्धित है, बोर्ड के रिकार्ड में मौजूद है औि
यदद मौजूद है तो उस अभ्यार्थी का नाम जो इस
अनुक्रमाांक से सम्बन्धित है।

2. उक्त तथ्ों िी जांच हेतु मेिे द्वािा सववप्रथम
टी.ई.टी. 2011 में सम्मिसलत सिी अभ्यासथवयों िी सूची
जहााँ से प्रथम अनुक्रमांि शुरू होता है औि अम्मिम
अनुक्रमांि खत्म होता है, सि चाही गयी। वहााँ मौजूद
ससचव माध्यसमि सशक्षा परिषद एवं अन्य िसमवयों िे
द्वािा मुझे रििार्व रूम ले जाया गया औि वहााँ उक्त
पिीक्षा से सम्बम्मित सिी गण्डलो िे असिलेख मेिे
समक्षा िखे गये। मेिे द्वािा सिी असिलेखो िी जााँच
िी गयी, असिलेखो िे देखने से यह पता चला सि
उक्त पिीक्षा िे सलए प्रदेश िो िुल 18 मण्डल में
सविासजत सिया गया था एवं प्रत्येि मण्डल िे सलए
दो अंिो िा एि िोर् सनर्ावरित सिया गया था जो
01, 02, 03 ....... 18 ति था। अनुक्रमांि िे प्रथम दो
अंि मण्डल िो दसशवत ििते थे। प्रथम मण्डल मेिट
था सजसमें अनुक्रमांि संख्या 01000001 से
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01098674 ति आवंसटत था, सद्वतीय मण्डल
सहािनपुि था सजसमें अनुक्रमांि संख्या 02000001
से 02027646 ति आवंसटत थे, तृतीय मण्डल आगिा
था सजसमें अनुक्रमांि संख्या 03000001 से
03084880 ति आवसटत था, इसी प्रिाि सम्पूर्व 18
मण्डलो में अनुक्रमांि िे प्रथम दो अंि उस मण्डल
िे िोर् से प्रािंि होिि उस मण्डल में िुल
सम्मिसलत अभ्यासथवयों िी संख्या िे अनुसाि मण्डल
वाि अनुक्रमांि आवंसटत सिये गये थे।

3. अनुक्रमांि आवंटन िी उक्त व्यवस्था िो
देखने से ही स्पष्ट हो जाता है सि प्रश्नगत अनुक्रमांि
90904646 वास्तव में टी.ई.टी. पिीक्षा 2011 में सिसी
िी अभ्याथी िो आवंसटत हो ही नहीं सिता था,
क्ोंसि 90 सिसी िी मण्डल िा िोर् नही था।
सम्पूर्व दस्तावेजो िे अवलोिन से यह स्पष्ट था सि
टी.ई.टी. पिीक्षा 2011 में िोई िी अनुक्रमांि
01,02,03,04,05,06, ........ 18 से ही प्रािंि हो सिता
था, जो िुल 18 मण्डलो िो ही प्रदसशवत ििता था।
प्रश्नगत अनुक्रमांि 90 से प्रािंि हो िहा है जो
माध्यसमि सशक्षा परिषद उ0प्र0 प्रयागिाज में
टी.ई.टी. 2011 पिीक्षा से सम्बम्मित समस्त मौजद
असिलेखो में नही था न ही इन अंिो से प्रािम्भ होिि
िोई अनुक्रमांि टी.ई.टी. 2011 पिीक्षा में सिसी
अभ्याथी िो आवंसटत हुआ था।

4. चूंसि यह िोल नम्बि सिसी िी िसजस्टि में
मौजूद नही था। अतः उक्त तथ् िी पुसष्ट हेतु मेिे द्वािा
इलेक्ट्रासनि असिलेखों िी िी जााँच आवश्यि
समझी गयी औि जााँच ििवाने हेतु ससचव से िहा
गया, सजस हेतु मुझे माध्यसमि सशक्षा परिषद िे
िम्प्यूटि रूम में ले जाया गया, जहााँ मेिे द्वािा
टी.ई.टी. 2011 से सम्बम्मित साफ्ट र्ाटा बेस िो
िम्प्यूटि पि खुलवाया गया सववप्रथम मेिे द्वािा
प्रश्नगत िोल नम्बि 90904646 िो फीर् ििवाया गया
औि सचव ििने पि ज्ञात हुआ सि सम्पूर्व टी0ई0टी0
पिीक्षा 2011 िे र्ाटाबेस में यह अनुक्रमांि मौजूद
नहीं है, तदुपिाि मेिे द्वािा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय
िे आदेश में वसर्वत अभ्याथी देवेन्द्र ससंह पुत्र िासलिा
ससंह िे नाम से सचव ििवाया गया तो उक्त नाम व
सपता नाम से िेवल एि अभ्याथी दसशवत हुआ
सजसिी जन्मसतसथ 15.4.1984 थी औि सजसिा
अनुक्रमांि 11011114 था न सि 90904646. औि वह
उक्त पिीक्षा में अनुत्तीर्व िी था तथा उसे असिलेख िे
अनुसाि िोई प्रमार्पत्र िी सनगवत नहीं हुआ था।

5. उपिोक्त जॉच िे क्रम में मेिे समक्ष ससचव
द्वािा उनिे िायावलय में सत्यापन हेतु प्राप्त देवेन्द्र
ससंह पुत्र िासलिा ससंह िे प्रमार्पत्र सदखाये गये
सजसमें प्रमार्पत्र संख्या 3133698 था। मेिे द्वािा उक्त
प्रमार्पत्र संख्या िे आर्ाि पि िी प्रश्नगत
अनुक्रमांि िी जॉच िी गयी तो सािर्ीयन पंसजिा
टी.ई.टी. 2011 पिीक्षा से यह पाया गया सि उक्त
प्रमार्पत्र संख्या अनुक्रमांि संख्या 09003193
मोहिद शमीम पुत्र सनउल्ला िो सनगवत सिया गया
है न सि देवेन्द्र ससंह पुत्र िासलिा ससंह िो। उक्त
तथ् िी पुसष्ट मेिे द्वािा इलेक्ट्रासनि असिलेख से िी
िी गयी तो यह पाया गया उक्त प्रमार्पत्र संख्या
3133698 देवीपाटन मण्डल िे अनुक्रमांि संख्या
09003193 िे अभ्याथी मोहिद शमीम पुत्र
सनउल्ला िो सनगवत सिया गया था।

उपिोक्त समस्त जॉच से स्पष्ट है सि प्रश्नगत
अनुक्रमाांक सांख्या 90904646 टी.ई.टी. पिीक्षा
2011 में दकसी अभ्यार्थी को आवांदटत नही दकया
गया औि न ही उक्त अनुक्रमाांक पि कोई
अभ्यार्थी टी.ई.टी. पिीक्षा 2011 में सन्धिदित
हुआ।"

21. The aforesaid report that was laid
before the Court by the office was shown to
Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh as well as to Mr.
Sharad Chandra Upadhyay. Mr. Ravi Pratap
Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
on being asked if he had anything more to
say in the matter about denial of
opportunity, fell short of words. The much
ado that he had made about denial of
opportunity or the need to undertake
disciplinary proceedings, did not figure in
the day's proceeding after the learned
Counsel for the petitioner had looked into
the learned Commissioner's report. It can
hardly be gainsaid that grant of opportunity
has no particular form. It ought to meet the
requirements of fair play in the given case.
No doubt if a duly appointed employee's
services that are governed by a statutory
tenure are to be terminated on the ground
of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings, in
accordance with law, are a sine qua non.
1 All. Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
But, it may not be so in a case where the
employment is secured through utter fraud.
It is well known that fraud vitiates all
solemn transaction. Any transaction that is
the result of a fraud is a nullity. Fraud is
required to be undone, wherever and
whenever it is found. This is not to be
misunderstood
and
mistaken
by
the
Authorities as a licence to label any
irregularity or illegality as fraud and then
short-circuit the procedure prescribed by
law to support a particular action.

22. The present case, however, is
definitely a case where the petitioner
cannot claim that he ought to be proceeded
with against in disciplinary proceedings.
His is a case where it can safely be said that
he was never validly appointed; his
appointment is a nullity. It has rightly been
undone. Also under the circumstances, the
petitioner has been afforded sufficient
opportunity. Before this Court, whatever
ripples had been created by falsehood and
confounding numericals to capitalize on the
fraud, have been laid open and bare to the
sunshine of truth by Mr. Neeraj Kushwaha's
punctilious examination of the Board's
record, which he has scripted in his report
with commendable clarity.

23. In the result, this writ petition fails
and is dismissed with costs in the sum of
Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner is directed to
deposit the costs awarded in the Account of
the Secretary, Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj
within six weeks of date. In the event, the
costs are not deposited within the time
allowed, on a certification to this effect
made by the Secretary, Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Prayagraj to the Collector, Basti, the
Collector, Basti is ordered to recover the
aforesaid sum of money from the petitioner
as arrears of land revenue and credit it
immediately upon recovery into the Board's
Account.
----------
(2021)01ILR A835
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 10300 of 2017

Bhanu Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lal Behari Yadav, Sri Kamla Kant
Srivastava, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - U. P. Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 - Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
Proviso to Section 7 - Service law -
Compassionate Appointment - Adoption
deed claimed - No wife's consent in
Adoption deed - Effect - Proviso to
Section 7 makes it imperative for a Hindu
male to secure his wife's consent to an
adoption that he makes, unless she has
completely and finally renounced the
world, or has ceased to be a Hindu, or has
been declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be of unsound mind - There
is nothing in any of these three exceptions
- A wife living apart from the husband,
utterly estranged, is still a wife, until the
marital bond between the parties is
severed by a decree of divorce or nullity of
marriage - Held, the impugned order,
holding the adoption not valid, does not
suffer from any infirmity. (Para 21 and 26)