# Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari v. State Of U.P. & Ors. 714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 713
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 20140 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamlesh-kumar-nirankari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-714-indian-law-reports-allahabad-53753
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Shashi Prakash Singh

Issue for Consideration
Applicability of principle of natural justice to the
appointment obtained by means of fraudulent
means and forged documents.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment - Post of Assistant Teacher -
Appointment was obtained on the basis of
forged
marksheets
and
certificate
-
Documents of complainant (who got
selected somewhere else) have been used
by the petitioner to obtain appointment in
place of complainant using his name -
Permissibility - No copy of impugned
order was served - Effect - Application of
principle of natural justice also felt into
consideration :
Held : Fraudulent appointments are void ab
initio and must be set aside, regardless of the
consequences - If an appointment is found to
be based on forgery, the authority has the right
to recall the appointment. The individual
appointed under such circumstances cannot
claim any equity or rights based on their
continued service, as the appointment is
fundamentally flawed - Principles of natural
justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula
and it cannot be applied in a vacuum without
reference
to
the
relevant
facts
and
circumstances of the case - If the initial
appointment itself was obtained fraudulently
then no enquiry in terms of Rules 1999 is
required - Where facts are admitted, an enquiry
would be an empty formality - Appointments
obtained
through
fraudulent
means
are
considered void ab initio, meaning they are null
and
void
from
the
beginning.
Such
appointments are not recognized by law, and
the individual holding the appointment is not
entitled to any benefits or protection - Holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article
311 of the Constitution of India or under any
disciplinary rules including the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999, shall not arise. [Paras 10,
13, 18, 22, 26, 27 and 35] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
District Basic Education Officer and another v.
Smt. Punita Singh and 3 others, 2024 SCC
Online All 8415; Union of India vs. M.
Bhaskaran, (1995) Supp(4) SCC 100; Ram
Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC
319; Usha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another,
2017 SCC Online All 6109; Nageswar Sonkesri v.
State of M.P. and another, 2020 SCC Online MP
4461; Vijay Krishnarao Kurundkar and another
v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC
Online SC 834; Jainendra Singh vs. State of
U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748; K.L. Tripathi Vs. State
Bank of India & Ors., (1984) 1 SCC 43; N.K.
Prasada Vs. Government of India & Ors., (2004)
6 SCC 299; State of Punjab V. Jagir Singh,
(2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G.
Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409; Viveka Nand
Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5
SCC 337; Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha
Devi Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 492; Mardia
Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC
311; Canara Bank Vs. Debasis Das, (2003) 4
SCC 557; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105; Ishwar Dayual
Sah v. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab IC 390; Rita
Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, 1988 Lab
IC 907; Union of India Vs. Prohlad Guha etc.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 311; Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973; Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999.

List of Keywords
Appointment; Assistant Teacher; Null and void;
Inquiry; Forged document; Marksheet and
certificate;
Principle
of
natural
justice;
Fraudulent
means;
Cancellation;
Public
appointment; Misrepresentation; Strait-jacket
formula; Vacuum; Equitable principles; Equitable
doctrine; Concealment of material facts; Void ab
initio; Show-cause notice.

Case Arising From
8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
715
Order date 06.10.2022 whereby the petitioner's
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
was rendered null and v

## Text

8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
713
कशकायत कदनांक 03/03/2019 के आिार पर उत्तर पुकस्तका
मंगाकर अविोकन ककया गया तो कशकायत असत्य पायी गयी।"

22. The enquiry report records finding
that eight answer booklets were taken out
from the storage centre at the time when
the petitioner was in-charge of the
aforesaid department and five answer
booklets were taken out when the petitioner
was on medical leave. The case of
petitioner is that the petitioner was having
his duty at the evaluation department and
not at the storage centre may be indicative
of fact that the petitioner was not having
proper control over the storage centre and
the aforesaid finding could only be
recorded in the event findings recorded by
the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was
responsible for supervision of the storage
centre. As per the office order dated
6.3.2018, the petitioner was assigned duty
to assist the Coordinator. The office order
dated 6.3.2018 has not been denied in the
counter affidavit. The only stand taken in
the counter affidavit was to the effect that
the petitioner was in-charge of the
evaluation centre and no office order has
been filed along with the counter affidavit
with regard to the aforesaid duties of the
petitioner. Even otherwise, if there was a
laxity on the part of the petitioner then
specific finding ought to have been
recorded by referring to the duty chart of
the petitioner, more particularly, when
finding as recorded in the enquiry report
that the answer booklets were taken out on
the instruction of Sri Satya Prakash-Daily
Assistant.

23. Even otherwise deduction of 50%
gratuity, more particularly, when no
financial loss has been suffered by the
University also does not stand legal
sanctity as no provision is shown by
learned counsel for the University which
empowers respondents to deduct gratuity
without financial loss. Insofar as the stand
of the respondent-University that complaint
dated 3.3.2019 with regard to student
Madhur Kant Sahu is concerned, specific
finding has been recorded to the effect that
the complaint dated 3.3.2019 was found to
be incorrect. Even otherwise a person
having overall supervision of a concerned
department cannot be punished with
compulsory
retirement
unless
finding
recorded to the effect that petitioner has
committed any misconduct or has been
negligent in his duties. Once such finding
has not been recorded in the impugned
order and only on the basis of general
fixation of liability on all the employees
involved in department concerned, the
impugned order of compulsory retirement
and 50% deduction of gratuity is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and as such is
liable to be set aside.

24. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated
6.6.2019
passed
by
Registrar,
Bundelkhand
University,
Jhansi
-
respondent
no.
3
and
order
dated
10.11.2020 passed by the Disciplinary
Committee as well as resolution dated
10.11.2020 is set aside. The writ petition is
allowed with consequential relief.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 713
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 20140 of 2023

Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil
Kumar
Verma,
Kamalesh
Kumar
Nishad, M.S. Chauhan, Ravindra Kumar
Srivastava, Shriprakash Shrivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shashi Prakash Singh

Issue for Consideration
Applicability of principle of natural justice to the
appointment obtained by means of fraudulent
means and forged documents.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment - Post of Assistant Teacher -
Appointment was obtained on the basis of
forged
marksheets
and
certificate
-
Documents of complainant (who got
selected somewhere else) have been used
by the petitioner to obtain appointment in
place of complainant using his name -
Permissibility - No copy of impugned
order was served - Effect - Application of
principle of natural justice also felt into
consideration :
Held : Fraudulent appointments are void ab
initio and must be set aside, regardless of the
consequences - If an appointment is found to
be based on forgery, the authority has the right
to recall the appointment. The individual
appointed under such circumstances cannot
claim any equity or rights based on their
continued service, as the appointment is
fundamentally flawed - Principles of natural
justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula
and it cannot be applied in a vacuum without
reference
to
the
relevant
facts
and
circumstances of the case - If the initial
appointment itself was obtained fraudulently
then no enquiry in terms of Rules 1999 is
required - Where facts are admitted, an enquiry
would be an empty formality - Appointments
obtained
through
fraudulent
means
are
considered void ab initio, meaning they are null
and
void
from
the
beginning.
Such
appointments are not recognized by law, and
the individual holding the appointment is not
entitled to any benefits or protection - Holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article
311 of the Constitution of India or under any
disciplinary rules including the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999, shall not arise. [Paras 10,
13, 18, 22, 26, 27 and 35] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
District Basic Education Officer and another v.
Smt. Punita Singh and 3 others, 2024 SCC
Online All 8415; Union of India vs. M.
Bhaskaran, (1995) Supp(4) SCC 100; Ram
Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC
319; Usha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another,
2017 SCC Online All 6109; Nageswar Sonkesri v.
State of M.P. and another, 2020 SCC Online MP
4461; Vijay Krishnarao Kurundkar and another
v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC
Online SC 834; Jainendra Singh vs. State of
U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748; K.L. Tripathi Vs. State
Bank of India & Ors., (1984) 1 SCC 43; N.K.
Prasada Vs. Government of India & Ors., (2004)
6 SCC 299; State of Punjab V. Jagir Singh,
(2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G.
Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409; Viveka Nand
Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5
SCC 337; Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha
Devi Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 492; Mardia
Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC
311; Canara Bank Vs. Debasis Das, (2003) 4
SCC 557; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105; Ishwar Dayual
Sah v. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab IC 390; Rita
Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, 1988 Lab
IC 907; Union of India Vs. Prohlad Guha etc.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 311; Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973; Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999.

List of Keywords
Appointment; Assistant Teacher; Null and void;
Inquiry; Forged document; Marksheet and
certificate;
Principle
of
natural
justice;
Fraudulent
means;
Cancellation;
Public
appointment; Misrepresentation; Strait-jacket
formula; Vacuum; Equitable principles; Equitable
doctrine; Concealment of material facts; Void ab
initio; Show-cause notice.

Case Arising From
8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
715
Order date 06.10.2022 whereby the petitioner's
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
was rendered null and void.

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

1. Heard Mr. Shriprakash Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent nos.2&3 and Mr. Shailendra
Singh, learned counsel for the Staterespondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been
preferred, inter alia, challenging the order
dated 6.10.2022, passed by Respondent
No.2, whereby the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher
has been rendered null and void, and a
consequential direction for recovery of the
salary paid has also been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has made the following contentions:-

i) The petitioner was initially
appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide
order
dated
10.08.2010,
and
the
appointment
letter
was
issued
by
Respondent No.2 on the same date. The
petitioner discharged his duties honestly,
and there were no complaints against him.

ii) Subsequently, the District
Basic Education Officer issued a letter
dated 26.06.2020, calling the petitioner to
appear on 02.07.2020 to explain the
documents produced at the time of
appointment.

iii) Further, another letter dated
14.08.2020 was issued, requiring the
petitioner
to
submit
documents
on
17.08.2020 and appear before the Block
Education Officer. The petitioner was again
required to be present before the Block
Education
Officer
vide
letter
dated
26.06.2020.

iv) On 13.06.2022, the petitioner
appeared before the Block Education
Officer
and
submitted
the
relevant
documents, i.e., his appointment letter,
mark sheets and certificates of High
School, Intermediate, Bachelor of Arts
(B.A.), and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)
as well as BTC training certificate, and
domicile certificate.

v)
Notwithstanding
the
submission of documents, Respondent No.
2 passed an order dated 6.10.2022,
declaring the Petitioner's appointment null
and void ab initio and directing recovery of
the salary paid to him.

vi) The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order
suffers
from
fundamental
infirmities.
Firstly, a copy of the impugned order has
not been served upon the petitioner, which
is violative of the principles of natural
justice and contrary to the mandate of law.
Secondly, the impugned order has been
passed in a mechanical manner, sans
application of mind, rendering it illegal,
arbitrary, and mala fide.

vii)
The
petitioner
appeared
before Respondent No.2 on 13.06.2022 and
submitted all the relevant educational
certificates,
which
have
not
been
considered while passing the impugned
order.

viii) It is contended that if the
original documents were suspected to be
forged, a thorough inquiry should have
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been conducted by the concerned Board or
University, which has not been done.

ix) It is further submitted that the
entire exercise appears to have been done
based on a complaint moved by one
Kamlesh Kumar Yadav.

x) It is contended that the
Petitioner is a resident of Village Haldi
Rampur, Tehsil Belthra Road, District
Ballia, and belongs to the Scheduled Caste
category, specifically Hindu Chamar. The
petitioner's date of birth is 20.06.1982, as
per his academic records. He studied up to
Class 5th at Prathamic Vidyalaya Taranv,
Ghazipur and subsequently, completed
Class 6th to 12th at Hanuman Singh Inter
College, Devkali, Gazipur (U.P.). The
Transfer
Certificate,
issued
on
15th
December 2023 by the Principal of the
institution, has been appended as Annexure
No.SA-3
of
the
2nd
supplementary
affidavit. Perusal of the document reveals
no evidence of manipulation, forgery, or
cheating by the Petitioner. However, due to
inadvertent errors on the part of the
concerned authorities, the petitioner's name
appears as 'Kamlesh Kumar' in PAN Card,
'Kamlesh' in Aadhar Card and 'Kamlesh
Kumar s/o Ramtahal Ram' in the certificate
of Special B.T.C. Training 2008, whereas
his all academic documents shows the
name "Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari s/o Ram
Tahal
Ram"
as
well
as
residential
certificate, and Scheduled Caste certificate
bear the name of petitioner as 'Kamlesh
Kumar' s/o Ram Tahal. The Petitioner
submits that these discrepancies are not
attributable to any fault on his part but are
rather due to mistakes committed by the
authorities.

xi)
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
further
contends
that
the
cancellation was effected without affording
him a full-fledged opportunity of hearing or
conducting a regular departmental enquiry,
thereby violating the principles of natural
justice.

xii) He further submits that the
impugned order violates the principles of
natural justice and is, therefore, unsustainable
in the eyes of law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for
the
respondent-BSA,
submits
that
the
Petitioner obtained appointment on the basis
of forged marksheets and certificates. It is
contended that the Petitioner was selected for
the Special BTC Training 2008 on the basis
of forged documents. The petitioner had not
submitted his entire documents despite
various letters issued by the departments. The
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
mentioning his name as "Kamlesh Kumar
Nirankari" but alongwith his record has not
annexed his residential certificate and the
Aadhar Card produced by the petitioner,
which shows the name as "Kamlesh" s/o
Ram Tahal, resident of Haldi Rampur, Ballia
U.P.
Pin
Code-221715.
The
address
mentioned by the petitioner appears to be
suspicious, therefore, vide office letter
no.9697-99/2021-22
dated
02.12.2021
addressed to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, District Ballia, it was requested to
provide the verification report followed by
another
letter
no.11460/2021-22
dated
19.01.2022, a request was again made for
verification of the address. However, no reply
was received, therefore, another letter bearing
no.12236/2021-22 dated 17.02.2022 and
letter no.428/2022-23 dated 13.04.2022 was
issued requesting for verification of the
address
of
the
petitioner.
Hence,
Superintendent of Police, Ballia submitted a
verification report dated 21.07.2022, wherein
it was informed as under:-
8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
717

"कमलेश कुमार पुत्र रामर्हल लनवास पता
हल्दीरामपुर, थाना-उभांव, जनपद-बललया का सत्यापन लकया गया
तो इस नाम पता का कोई व्यलक्त हल्दीरामपुर में नहीं रहता है ।"

5. He, therefore, submits that after
affording full opportunity to the petitioner
the order impugned dated 06.10.2022 was
passed, which is correct, legal and proper
and does not call for any interference.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner had no
knowledge of the letters dated 26.06.2020
and 14.08.2020, which were not served on
the petitioner. However, when the letter
dated 06.06.2022 was issued by respondent
no.3 to the petitioner, the petitioner
received it by registered post at the same
address,
which
is
annexed
in
the
supplementary affidavit as Annexure No.1.
The respondent authority ignored the same
and passed the impugned order. The
petitioner's address mentioned in the
service document is correct, and the letter
dated 06.06.2022 was received by the
petitioner at the same address. Thereafter,
the petitioner replied to the same on
13.06.2022 before the office of respondent
no.3 physically and filed an application on
the same date before the office dispatch
section, which was received and endorsed
on the application.

7. Learned counsel for the respondentBSA further submits that no notice or inquiry
is required when fraud has been played. He
further submits that it is the complainant
whose documents have been used by the
petitioner showing himself to be Kamlesh
Kumar Nirankari in place of Kamlesh Kumar
s/o Ram Tahal. In support of his contention,
he has relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
District Basic Education Officer and
another vs. Smt. Punita Singh and 3
others1.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

9. The following issues arise for
determination in the present case:-

a).
Whether
the
Petitioner's
appointment was obtained through fraudulent
means?

b). Whether the Respondent was
justified
in
cancelling
the
Petitioner's
appointment without conducting an inquiry?

c). Whether the Petitioner is
entitled to any relief in the circumstances?

10. The law is well-settled on this issue,
with numerous judicial pronouncements
emphasizing the importance of integrity and
honesty in public appointments. Courts have
consistently
held
that
fraudulent
appointments are void ab initio and must be
set aside, regardless of the consequences.

11.
Individuals
who
obtain
appointments
through
fraudulent
documents or actions are not entitled to any
legal protection or benefits derived from
such appointments. The law clearly states
that
any
benefits
obtained
through
fraudulent means must be returned. The
Apex Court in the case of Union of India
vs. M. Bhaskaran2 has held that if
employment is obtained by committing
fraud,
such
appointment
cannot
be
countervance
and
reinstatement
is
impermissible.

12. In the case of Ram Chandra
Singh vs. Savitri Devi3, the Apex Court
held that fraud as is well known vitiates
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
every solemn act, fraud and justice never
dwells together.

13. If an appointment is found to be
based on forgery, the authority has the right
to recall the appointment. The individual
appointed under such circumstances cannot
claim any equity or rights based on their
continued service, as the appointment is
fundamentally flawed. The aforesaid has
been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Usha Singh vs. State
of U.P. and another4. Also the same has
been held by Madhya Pradesh High in the
case of Nageswar Sonkesri vs. State of
M.P. and another5.

14. In the case of Vijay Krishnarao
Kurundkar and another vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others6, the Apex
Court
has
consistently
held
that
appointments made on the basis of forged
documents
are
invalid
and
such
appointments are void ab initio and cannot
be legitimized by any subsequent actions.

15. In the case of Jainendra Singh vs.
State of U.P.7, Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the fact of appointment obtained
by fraud and held in para 29.1 to 29.10 as
under :-

"29.1
Fraudulently
obtained
orders of appointment could be legitimately
treated as voidable at the option of the
employer or could be recalled by the
employer and in such cases merely because
the respondent employee has continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis
of such fraudulently obtained employment,
cannot get any equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer.

29.2 Verification of the character
and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to the post under the
State and on account of his antecedents the
appointing authority if find not desirable to
appoint a person to a disciplined force can
it be said to be unwarranted.

29.3 When appointment was
procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation
and
fraud
on
the
employer and, therefore, it would create no
equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer while resorting to termination
without holding any inquiry.

29.4
A
candidate
having
suppressed material information and/or
giving false information cannot claim right
to continue in service and the employer,
having regard to the nature of employment
as well as other aspects, has the discretion
to terminate his services.

29.5 Purpose of calling for
information regarding involvement in any
criminal case or detention or conviction is
for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents
at
the
time
of
recruitment and suppression of such
material
information
will
have
clear
bearing on the character and antecedents of
the candidate in relation to his continuity in
service.

29.6 The person who suppressed
the material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.

29.7 The standard expected of a
person intended to serve in uniformed
service is quite distinct from other services
and, therefore, any deliberate statement or
omission regarding a vital information can
8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
719
be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot
be faulted.

29.8 An employee on probation
can be discharged from service or may be
refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or
making false statement relating to his
involvement
in
the
criminal
case,
conviction or detention, even if ultimately
he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch
as such a situation would make a person
undesirable or unsuitable for the post.

29.9
An
employee
in
the
uniformed service pre-supposes a higher
level of integrity as such a person is
expected to uphold the law and on the
contrary such a service born in deceit and
subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

29.10 The authorities entrusted
with the responsibility of appointing
Constables, are under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidate to find out
whether he is suitable for the post of a
Constable and so long as the candidate has
not been acquitted in the criminal case, he
cannot
be
held
to be
suitable
for
appointment to the post of Constable."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

16. Thus, the law in case of
appointment obtained fraudulently is well
settled. Fraudulently obtained order of
appointment or approval can be recalled by
the authority concerned. In such cases
merely because the employee continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis
of fraudulently obtained orders, cannot
create any equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer/authority.
When an appointment or approval has been
obtained by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation
and
fraud
on
the
employer. It would create no equity in his
favour or any estoppel against the employer
to cancel such appointment or approval
since "Fraud and justice never dwell
together."

17. In view of the foregoing analysis
and observations, now, it is clear that when
any selection/recruitment or appointment to
some post was made illegally and it is
noticed on the complaint or at subsequent
stage
that
illegalities,
irregularities,
improprieties, procedural infirmities and
deficiencies and defects have occurred,
forgery or foul-play adopted or non
observance of Act, rules, norms were made
in process then the beneficiary candidate,
who has become output and product of
such defective and bad selection or
outcome of spoiled system process, shall
have no right or claim to the post or salary
or any consequential benefits in the service.

18. In so far as the submission made
by counsel for the petitioner that the copy
of impugned order has not been served
upon the Petitioner, which is violative of
the principles of natural justice and
contrary to the mandate of law, it cannot be
doubted that the principles of natural
justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket
formula and that principles cannot be
applied in a vacuum without reference to
the relevant facts and circumstances of the
case. This is what has been held by the
Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi Vs. State
Bank of India & Ors.8; N.K. Prasada Vs.
Government of India & Ors.9; State of
Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh10; Karnataka
SRTC Vs. S.G. Kotturappa11 and in
Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K
Bank Ltd.12
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. In Union of India Vs. Tulsiram
Patel13, the Supreme Court observed :-

"Though the two rules of natural
justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua
and audi alteram partem, have now a
definite meaning and connotation in law
and their content and implications are well
understood and firmly established, they are
nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of
these rules yields to and changes with the
exigencies of different situations. They do
not apply in the same manner to situations
which are not alike. These rules are not cast
in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a
legal straitjacket. They are not immutable
but flexible."

20. It is equally well settled that the
principles of natural justice must not be
stretched too far and in this connection
reference can be made to the decisions of
the Supreme Court in the cases of Sohan
Lal Gupta VS. Asha Devi Gupta14;
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of
India15 and Canara Bank Vs. Debasis
Das16.

21. An appointment obtained by fraud
is non est. Fraud is anathema to all
equitable principles and any affair tainted
with fraud could not be perpetuated or
saved by application of any equitable
doctrine.

22. It is well settled that if the initial
appointment
itself
was
obtained
fraudulently then no enquiry in terms of
Rules 1999 is required as is held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.
Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
and others17, and Patna High Court
judgements in Ishwar Dayual Sah Vs.
State of Bihar18 and Rita Mishra Vs.
Director, Primary Education19. The Apex
Court, in the aforesaid cases, came to the
following conclusion:-

"12. Taking a cue from the ratio
of the decision of the Supreme Court, we
are of the opinion that if it is ultimately
found on inquiry referred earlier that the
opposite party no. 1 had practiced fraud or
deceit to obtain the appointment as already
discussed, then, it would be a case to
proceed for cancellation of appointment by
issuing a show cause notice for the said
purpose annexing the inquiry report and
material collected in such inquiry and then
considering the reply of the appointee in
this regard and taking a reasoned decision
after affording an opportunity of personal
hearing for cancellation of appointment and
not necessarily for dismissal or removal of
service, therefore, there is no question of
any inquiry to be held in terms of Rules,
1999 as has already been held in the
aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.

13.
This
will
be
sufficient
observance of principles of natural justice.
It may also be pointed out that an employee
of Basic Education Department does not
have the benefit of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India as Article 311 of the
Constitution of India would not apply,
however, the relevant rules for disciplinary
proceedings for imposition of major
punishment such as removal, dismissal etc.
would apply, but, for the reasons aforesaid,
those will also not apply if on a fact finding
inquiry it is found that the appointment was
obtained by fraud, as already observed
hereinabove and thereafter the aforesaid
procedure is followed."

23. In the case of Union of India Vs.
Prohlad Guha etc.20, it has been clearly
held by the Apex Court that in case the
employment has been obtained based on
8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
721
fraudulent
documents
on
concealing
material facts, the beneficiary of such fraud
cannot seek that proper procedure as
prescribed under Rule 1999 must be
followed.

24. In the present case, the petitioner
has used the documents of the complainant,
who had not come to join at the place
where the petitioner joined as he was given
appointment somewhere else and after
coming to know that the petitioner was
taking
benefits
of
his
educational
certificates, as he had produced the same
before the authorities to get an appointment
on which the petitioner was called to bring
the original certificates, which he could
not, hence complaint made was look into.

25. From the records, it is also clear
that the petitioner is not the person he is
claiming to be as is evident from his Pan
Card, Aadhar Card, Special B.T.C. training
2008 Certificate, academic documents,
residential and scheduled caste certificates,
wherein
name
has
been
mentioned
differently.

26. It is clear from the aforesaid
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the application of the principles of
natural justice depends upon the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case and
whenever a complaint is made about its
violation, the Court has to decide whether
the observance of that Rule was necessary
for a just decision on the facts of the case.
The Supreme Court also noticed that there
can be a situation where persons who are
not even eligible for being appointed are
appointed and in such a situation, if such
persons are discontinued it would not be a
punitive measure because they have been
discontinued as they had infact never been
appointed. In fact, it has been held, that
they do not hold any right over the post
and, therefore, are not entitled for any
hearing. The decision also holds that where
facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an
empty formality.

27. Appointments obtained through
fraudulent means are considered void ab
initio, meaning they are null and void
from the beginning. Such appointments
are not recognized by law, and the
individual holding the appointment is
not entitled to any benefits or protection.
Any
benefits
obtained
through
fraudulent
means,
including
salary,
allowances, and other emoluments, must
be returned to the employer or the State.
The individual is not entitled to retain
any benefits derived from a fraudulent
appointment.

28. In the present case, upon perusal of
the records, discrepancies in the petitioner's
name across various documents have been
noted, specifically:

"1. PAN Card: "Kamlesh Kumar"

2. Aadhar Card: "Kamlesh"

3. Special B.T.C. Training 2008
certificate: "Kamlesh Kumar"

4.
Academic
documents:
"Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari s/o Ram Tahal
Ram"

5. Residential and Scheduled
Caste certificates: "Kamlesh Kumar" s/o
Ramtahal"

29. These discrepancies raise concerns
regarding the authenticity and validity of
the
documents
and
the
petitioner's
appointment.
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. The petitioner has failed to establish the
authenticity of his academic documents, and
discrepancies in his name across vital records
reveal a prima facie case of fraud. The petitioner's
inability to produce genuine documents, coupled
with the misuse of documents belonging to some
other, i.e. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, confirms that
the appointment was obtained through fraudulent
means.

31. It is clear from the records that
documents of complainant (who got selected
somewhere else) have been used by petitioner to
obtain appointment in place of complainant using
his name.

32. In the present case, the verification report
categorically
records
that
the
documents
submitted by the petitioner were forged. The
petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and was
called upon to produce the original certificates, but
he failed to do so. In these circumstances, the
respondents were justified in concluding that the
appointment had been procured by fraudulent
means.

33. The contention that a full departmental
enquiry ought to have been held is without merit.
Once it is established that the very entry into
service was vitiated by fraud, there is no
"termination" in the strict sense, but only a
declaration that no valid appointment ever existed.
The requirement of an elaborate enquiry, as
mandated for proven misconduct of a regular
employee, has no application to such cases.

34. In this view of the matter, when the
petitioner had produced forged documents for
getting appointment and nothing has been pointed
out to controvert the findings recorded in the
impugned order, the petitioner is not entitled to
grant any relief as prayed.

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

36. The forgery committed by the petitioner,
for obtaining public employment on the basis of
forged educational documents is the basic
eligibility condition for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher. Therefore, it vitiates the
process of his appointment. Thus, the appointment
of the petitioner is void ab initio and he cannot be
said to be a government servant. Therefore, his
appointment has been lawfully cancelled by the
impugned order.

37. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not
find any error of law in the impugned order dated
06.10.2022, which has been passed by the
respondent no.2. Therefore, the writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 722
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 45146 of 2015
&
Connected With Other Matters

Ashok Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: