# Ganesh Tripathi & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 339
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-28
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7655 of 2019
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia, Vivek Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganesh-tripathi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52654
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

order cancelling the selection process?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973: Section 50(6) - The order
cancelling the selection process cannot be
arbitrary. It must be supported by cogent
reasons.
In
other
words,
while
the
employer
has
an
absolute
right
to
withdraw
the
advertisement,
yet
a
prospective
candidate
can
assail
the
decision on the ground of arbitrariness or
lack of bona fides. This is the limited right
available to a prospective candidate while
assailing withdrawal from selection process. The
very fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
recognized a right in the prospective candidate
to assail the withdrawal order itself renders the
present writ petition maintainable. (Para 10)

B. The amendments introduced in UGC
Regulations of 2010 did not bring any
change in the existing qualifications to the
post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic
Science)
that
was
published
in
advertisement no. 2 of 2016. In this view
of the matter, it is clear that the reason
behind cancellation of the advertisement
regarding recruitment of more qualified
candidate in terms of the amended
regulations would not ipso facto apply to
the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic
Science). (Para 13)

C. The decision taken by the Chancellor of
the University on 27.10.2017 is clearly in
the breach of GO dated 08.04.2017. The
impugned order passed by the Chancellor on
27.10.2017 ignores binding effect of the GO
dated 08.04.2017. Perusal of the GO dated
08.04.2017 clearly shows that the State
Government was cognizant of the fact that the
said GO could interfere with ongoing selection
processes and all pending advertisements were
protected under the aforesaid GO. While taken
the decision by the State Government to apply
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the amendments to UGC Regulations of 2010
prospectively in future advertisements, the
Universities were categorically instructed to
continue with ongoing selection processes
without being influenced in any manner with
amendments
incorporated
vide
GO
dated
08.04.2017. (Para 14)

D. From perusal of the minutes of meeting
dated 27.10.2017, it is clear that the
decision making process is erroneous,
therefore, the considerations that went
into the passing of the impugned order
dated 27.10.2017 were factually incorrect.
The writ petition assailing the advertisement
process
had
already
been
dismissed
on
25.10.2017, as the meeting proceeded on an
assumption that challenge to the selection
process was still pending as on 27.10.2017.
Furthermore, the committee wrongly noted that
the selection process had remained inconclusive
despite lapse of more than two years from the
date of its publication. This was also factually
incorrect that the advertisements were issued
only in September 2016 and that a period of
only 13 months had lapsed

## Text

10 All. Ganesh Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
339
and delay and laches would not come into
the play as settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of M.R. Gupta (supra)
and Tarsem Singh (Supra).

25. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and keeping in view the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
argument of the laches will not be
applicable in the present case. Thus, it is
clear that the case of petitioner is at par
with the cases of other similarly situated
employees, therefore, the order cannot
sustain.

26. In view of the above, the present
petition stands allowed and the impugned
order dated 05-02-2018 and impugned
order dated 02.02.2016 are hereby set side.

27. The respondents are directed to
release the amount recovered and withheld
from the post retiral dues of the petitioner
along with the simple interest of 6% per
annum in two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 339
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

Writ A No. 7655 of 2019

Ganesh Tripathi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
P.K. Upadhyay, Pradeep Kumar Pandey,
Rakesh Kumar, Tarun Agrawal, Varun
Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for the Respondents:
Avneesh Tripathi, C.S.C., Neeraj Tripathi
(Sr. Adv.), Ved Byas Mishra

Issue for consideration
 Whether a prospective candidate can assail the
order cancelling the selection process?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973: Section 50(6) - The order
cancelling the selection process cannot be
arbitrary. It must be supported by cogent
reasons.
In
other
words,
while
the
employer
has
an
absolute
right
to
withdraw
the
advertisement,
yet
a
prospective
candidate
can
assail
the
decision on the ground of arbitrariness or
lack of bona fides. This is the limited right
available to a prospective candidate while
assailing withdrawal from selection process. The
very fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
recognized a right in the prospective candidate
to assail the withdrawal order itself renders the
present writ petition maintainable. (Para 10)

B. The amendments introduced in UGC
Regulations of 2010 did not bring any
change in the existing qualifications to the
post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic
Science)
that
was
published
in
advertisement no. 2 of 2016. In this view
of the matter, it is clear that the reason
behind cancellation of the advertisement
regarding recruitment of more qualified
candidate in terms of the amended
regulations would not ipso facto apply to
the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic
Science). (Para 13)

C. The decision taken by the Chancellor of
the University on 27.10.2017 is clearly in
the breach of GO dated 08.04.2017. The
impugned order passed by the Chancellor on
27.10.2017 ignores binding effect of the GO
dated 08.04.2017. Perusal of the GO dated
08.04.2017 clearly shows that the State
Government was cognizant of the fact that the
said GO could interfere with ongoing selection
processes and all pending advertisements were
protected under the aforesaid GO. While taken
the decision by the State Government to apply
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the amendments to UGC Regulations of 2010
prospectively in future advertisements, the
Universities were categorically instructed to
continue with ongoing selection processes
without being influenced in any manner with
amendments
incorporated
vide
GO
dated
08.04.2017. (Para 14)

D. From perusal of the minutes of meeting
dated 27.10.2017, it is clear that the
decision making process is erroneous,
therefore, the considerations that went
into the passing of the impugned order
dated 27.10.2017 were factually incorrect.
The writ petition assailing the advertisement
process
had
already
been
dismissed
on
25.10.2017, as the meeting proceeded on an
assumption that challenge to the selection
process was still pending as on 27.10.2017.
Furthermore, the committee wrongly noted that
the selection process had remained inconclusive
despite lapse of more than two years from the
date of its publication. This was also factually
incorrect that the advertisements were issued
only in September 2016 and that a period of
only 13 months had lapsed as on 27.10.2017.
(Para 15)

The entire decision making process culminating
in the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 is
marred with factual inaccuracies and reflects a
complete non-application of mind and the
impugned order dated 27.10.2017 has been
passed in complete breach of the GO dated
08.04.2017
which
had
protected
ongoing
advertisements. Therefore, the impugned orders
dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 passed by the
Chancellor and Vice Chancellor respectively are
liable to be quashed. (Para 16)

E. Since this court by its order dated
20.02.2020 directed the respondent to
keep reserved one post of Assistant
Professor (Linguistic Science) for the
petitioner
no.
2,
the
subsequent
advertisements issued for recruitment to
the aforesaid post cannot come in the way
of relief being granted to petitioner no.2.
Nothing on record to indicate that any fresh
appointment has been made to the post in
question
pursuant
to
subsequent
advertisements,
nor
could
any
such
appointment be made in view of the interim
order dated 20.02.2020. (Para 17)

The order dated 29.05.2025 is also significant
for grant of relief. The result of the interview
was placed before this Court in a sealed cover
for its perusal. After scanning the results, the
earlier bench recorded that the present petition
survived with respect to petitioner no.2 only.
The petitioner no.2, stood selected pursuant to
the interview and would have been appointed
but for the impugned orders. (Para 18)

The writ petition is allowed only in respect of
petitioner No.2. The impugned order dated
27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor, and the
consequential order dated 03.11.2017 passed
by
the
Vice-Chancellor
is
quashed.
The
impugned Minutes of Meeting dated 27.10.2017
is also quashed. Subsequent advertisements
shall stand modified to this extent. The ViceChancellor of the University is directed to grant
appointment to the petitioner no.2 on the post
of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) after
completing all procedural formalities within 30
days. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3
SCC 47 (Para 9)

List of Acts
 U.P. State Universities Act, 1973; University
Grants Commission in (Minimum Qualification
for
Appointment
of
Teachers
and
other
Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulation, 2010.

List of Keywords
 advertisement,
recruitment,
qualification,
selection process.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: P.K. Upadhyay, Pradeep Kumar
Pandey, Rakesh Kumar, Tarun Agrawal, Varun
Kumar Chaubey
For Respondent: Avneesh Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Neeraj Tripathi(Senior Adv.), Ved Byas Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)
&
10 All. Ganesh Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
341
(Hon'ble Vivek Saran, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have preferred the
present writ petition inter alia, with the
prayer to quash the minutes of meeting No.
E3051/GS dated 27.10.2017 held under the
Chairmanship
of
respondent
no
4/Chancellor,
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, Raj Bhawan,
Lucknow regarding Advertisement No. 2 of
2016. Insofar as the other reliefs sought in
the writ petition are concerned, the same is
also relates to orders passed pursuant to the
minutes of meeting dated 27.10.2017.

3. Initially, the present petition was
filed by two petitioners viz. petitioner no.
1-Ganesh Tripathi, and petitioner no. 2-Dr.
Rani
Dwivedi
and
by
order
dated
29.05.2025 passed by this Court, the case
of petitioner no. 1 was dismissed, the
matter has been heard and decided only in
respect of petitioner No.2.

4. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the respondentUniversity issued advertisements being
Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 dated
24.05.2016 and Advertisement No. 2 of
2016 dated 16.09.2016 for recruitment to
various
posts
in
the
University.
Advertisement
No.
1/2016
has
been
published
regarding
appointments
of
Professors and Associate Professors and
Advertisement
no.
2/2016
has
been
published
regarding
recruitment
of
Assistant Professors. Petitioner no. 2
applied under advertisement no. 2/2016 for
the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic
Science) and she appeared before the
interview panel on 25.10.2017. However,
before the result could be declared, the
Special Executive Officer in the office of
the Chancellor of the University, wrote a
letter to the Vice Chancellor on 27.10.2017
instructing him to proceed with selections
after incorporating the amendments made
by the University Grants Commission in
(Minimum Qualification for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for
the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education)
Regulation,
2010
(UGC
Regulation of 2010 hereinafter). The Vice
Chancellor was also directed not to take
any policy decision after 01.11.2017 in
view of his impending retirement.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions
given
by
the
Chancellor,
the
Vice
Chancellor halted the recruitments by the
order dated 03.11.2017. After incorporating
the amendments in its Statutes, the
University carried out fresh advertisements
for recruitment to the post in question.
Hence the present petition has been filed by
the petitioners challenging the order dated
27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor and
the consequential order of the Vice
Chancellor dated 03.11.2017 as well as the
fresh advertisement.

6. In support of his case, it is argued
by learned counsel for the petitioner No.2
that orders passed by the Chancellor as well
as Vice-Chancellor is contrary to the settled
principles of law. It is argued that the
impugned order passed by the Chancellor
on 27.10.2017 is based on a selective
interpretation of the Government Order
dated 08.04.2017 which clearly provided
for continuing with the advertisements
already published. The Government Order
dated 08.04.2017 issued under Sub Section
(6) of Section 50 of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 incorporated the
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Third and the Fourth Amendment in UGC
Regulations of 2010 with prospective effect
only. As such, the impugned order passed
by
the
Chancellor
halting/annulling
advertisement no.2 of 2016 that had been
published much before the issuance of the
Government Order dated 08.04.2017 is
patently arbitrary. It is further argued that
in any case the amendments introduced in
the UGC Regulations of 2010 did not alter
the
existing
qualifications/eligibilities
required for the post of Assistant Professor
(Linguistics Science). In this view of the
matter, the respondents committed manifest
illegality in annulling the selection process
with respect to the post of Assistant
Professor (Linguistics Science). It is further
argued that the meeting dated 27.10.2017
that led to the passing of the impugned
order recited incorrect facts with regard to
the pendency of the CMWP No. 49263 of
2017 for over two years. As a matter of
fact, CMWP No. 49263 of 2017 stood
dismissed on 25.10.2017 clearly holding
that no illegality was committed by the
University issuing the advertisements in
question. Also, the advertisement was
pending for a little over one year only on
the date of passing of the impugned order,
and not two years as incorrectly recorded
therein.

7. On the other hand, it is argued by
learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner
No.2
being
a
prospective
candidate does not have a vested right to
compel the respondents to declare the result
of the selection process. It is argued that
being prospective candidate, the petitioner
No.2 has no right to question the annulment
of the selection process particularly when
the opportunity was reserved for future
participation. It is argued that since the
order passed by the Chancellor has already
been upheld by this Court vide its judgment
dated 15.03.2019 passed in CMWP No.
3889 of 2019 (Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla Vs.
the Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.) the same is
binding upon the petitioner No.2 also.

8. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. Withe
consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the present petition is being disposed of
finally at the admission stage itself.

9. Insofar as the judgment dated
15.03.2019 passed in CMWP No. 3889 of
2019 (Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla Vs. the
Chancellor,
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.) is concerned, it is
argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
No.2 that the facts of the said case are
clearly
distinguishable.
Although,
the
order, which is under-challenge, is same
yet
the
writ
petition
pertained
to
Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 for the
appointment of Professors and Associate
Professors and the amendments introduced
in the UGC Regulations, 2010 introduced
better qualifications for recruitment to the
aforesaid two posts. In this view of the
matter, this Court held that the decision of
the Chancellor to halt the selection could
not be said to be erroneous. Further the
Court finds that it is true that no fetters can
be placed upon the employer to withdraw
the advertisement or to cancel it before the
selection is completed, yet any such
decision can still be questioned on the
ground
of
lack
of
bona
fides
or
arbitrariness. In this regard the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India
reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 is both
instructive. It has held the field for over
three decades.

10. The Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
10 All. Ganesh Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
343
Shankarsan Dash (Supra) clearly held that
the order cancelling the selection process
cannot be arbitrary. It must be supported by
cogent reasons. In other words, while the
employer has a absolute right to withdraw
the
advertisement,
yet
a
prospective
candidate can assail the decision on the
ground of arbitrariness or lack of bona
fides. This is the limited right available to a
prospective
candidate
while
assailing
withdrawal from selection process. The
very fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has recognized a right in the prospective
candidate to assail the withdrawal order
itself renders the present writ petition
maintainable.
Paragraph
7
of
the
Shankarsan Dash (Supra) judgement
reads as follows:-

"It is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to
be appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right
to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment
rules so indicate, the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State
has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies
or any of them are filled up, the State is
bound to respect the comparative merit of
the
candidates,
as
reflected
at
the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can
be permitted. This correct position has
been consistently followed by this Court,
and we do not find any discordant note in
the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash
Chander Marwaha reported in (1974) 3
SCC 220, Neelima Shangla v. State of
Haryana reported in (1986) 5 SCC 268, or
Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab reported
in (1985) 1 SCC 122."

11. Further the judgment and order
dated 15.03.2019 does not take into
account the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan
Dash (Supra) and the same also does not
deal with the Government Order dated
08.04.2017 which protected all pending
advertisements. The plea raised in the
present petition had not been raised in the
earlier petition which did not also relate to
the
advertisement
in
question.
The
impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed
by the Chancellor was not affirmed on
merits, rather on the issue of extent to
which a prospective candidate can assail
such an order.

12. In this view of the matter, the
Court is of the opinion that the judgment
and order dated 15.03.2019 passed in WritA No. 3889 of 2019 (Dr. Amit Kumar
Shukla Vs. the Chancellor. Sampurnanand
Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.) is
limited to its own peculiar set of facts and
the same does not lay down any binding
precedent upon this Court to hold that writ
petition by a prospective candidate is not
maintainable as the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash
(Supra) clearly recognizes maintainability
of such writ petition.

13. Insofar as the impugned order
dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor,
and subsequential order dated 03.11.2017
passed by the Vice Chancellor halting the
selection
process
is
concerned,
the
petitioner has made a specific averment in
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paragraph no. 34 of the writ petition that
the amendment did not made any change in
the qualification of Assistant Professor and
the aforesaid averment has not been
specifically denied by the respondentUniversity in paragraph-26 of its counter
affidavit. Therefore, it is admitted by both
sides that the amendments introduced in
UGC Regulations of 2010 did not bring any
change in the existing qualifications to the
post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic
Science)
that
was
published
in
advertisement no. 2 of 2016. In this view of
the matter it is clear that the reason behind
cancellation of the advertisement regarding
recruitment of more qualified candidate in
terms of the amended regulations would
not ipso facto apply to the post of Assistant
Professor (Linguistic Science).

14. The impugned passed by the
Chancellor on 27.10.2017 ignores binding
effect of the Government Order dated
08.04.2017. Interestingly, the respondentUniversity has purported to act only in
pursuance of the Government Order dated
08.04.2017. Perusal of the Government
Order dated 08.04.2017 clearly shows that
the State Government was cognizant of the
fact that the said Government Order could
interfere with ongoing selection processes
and all pending advertisements were
protected under the aforesaid Government
Order. While taken the decision by the
State Government to apply the amendments
to UGC Regulations of 2010 prospectively
in future advertisements, the Universities
were categorically instructed to continue
with ongoing selection processes without
being influenced in any manner with
amendments incorporated vide Government
Order dated 08.04.2017. In this view of the
matter,
the
decision
taken
by
the
Chancellor of the University on 27.10.2017
is clearly in the breach of the aforesaid
Government Order.

15. From perusal of the minutes of
meeting dated 27.10.2017, it is clear that
the decision making process is erroneous,
therefore, the considerations that went into
the passing of the impugned order dated
27.10.2017 were factually incorrect. The
writ petition assailing the advertisement
process had already been dismissed on
25.10.2017, as the meeting proceeded on an
assumption that challenge to the selection
process was still pending as on 27.10.2017.
Furthermore, the committee wrongly noted
that the selection process had remained
inconclusive despite lapse of more than two
years from the date of its publication. This
was also factually incorrect that the
advertisements
were
issued
only
in
September 2016 and that a period of only
13 months had lapsed as on 27.10.2017.

16.
The entire
decision
making
process culminating in the impugned order
dated 27.10.2017 is marred with factual
inaccuracies and reflects a complete nonapplication of mind and the impugned
order dated 27.10.2017 has been passed in
complete breach of the Government Order
dated 08.04.2017 which had protected
ongoing advertisements. In this view of the
matter, the Court is of the opinion that the
impugned orders dated 27.10.2017 and
03.11.2017 passed by the Chancellor and
Vice Chancellor respectively are liable to
be quashed.

17. Since this court by its order dated
20.02.2020 directed the respondent to keep
reserved one post of Assistant Professor
(Linguistic Science) for the petitioner no. 2,
the subsequent advertisements issued for
recruitment to the aforesaid post cannot
come in the way of relief being granted to
petitioner no.2. Nothing on record to
indicate that any fresh appointment has
been made to the post in question pursuant
10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
345
to subsequent advertisements, nor could
any such appointment be made in view of
the interim order dated 20.02.2020.

18. The order dated 29.05.2025 is also
significant for grant of relief. The result of
the interview was placed before this Court
in a sealed cover for its perusal. After
scanning the results, the earlier bench
recorded that the present petition survived
with respect to petitioner no.2 only.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the result was shown to both the counsel,
which reflected that the petitioner no.2 was
successful in the interview. Shri Shesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the University
did not dispute this fact in response to a
pointed query made by this Court. The
petitioner no.2 thus, stood selected pursuant
to the interview and would have been
appointed but for the impugned orders.

19. The writ petition is allowed only in
respect of petitioner No.2. The impugned
order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the
Chancellor, and the consequential order
dated 03.11.2017 passed by the ViceChancellor is quashed. The impugned
Minutes of Meeting dated 27.10.2017 is
also quashed. Subsequent advertisements
shall stand modified to this extent. The
Vice-Chancellor of the University is
directed to grant appointment to the
petitioner no.2 on the post of Assistant
Professor
(Linguistic
Science)
after
completing
all
procedural
formalities
within 30 days from today.

20. Registrar (Compliance) is directed
to communicate a copy of this order to the
Vice-Chancellor of the Sampurnanand
Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi as well
as
Registrar
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi through C.J.M.
Varanasi within 48 hours.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 10029 of 2025

Krishna Kant ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil
Kumar Dubey

Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether it is necessary to formally cancel a
succession certificate when, upon examination
of the official records such as the service book
and pension papers, it is found that the said
succession certificate was obtained on the basis
of misrepresentation or suppression of material
facts?
(b) Whether an appointment obtained by fraud
or misrepresentation can be sanctified by long
continuance in service?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988: Section 7; U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999: Rule 5(1); Dying in Harness Rules,
1974: Rule 5(1); Hindu Marriage Act,
1955: Section 5(1) - It is well settled that
fraud vitiates all solemn acts. A document
or order obtained by playing fraud on the
Court is non est in the eyes of law and is
void ab initio. (Para 77)

In the present case, if the succession certificate
is found, on the basis of service records and
pension
documents
available
with
the