# Kiran Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 740
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-26
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 326 of 2020
- **Bench:** Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kiran-lata-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46959
- **Pages:** 72

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 181,542. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefor also unsubstantiated and falls
through. The disputed land therefore will
not vest in the State as a result whereof the
beneficiary,
namely
the
Saharanpur
Development Authority cannot step into the
shoes of the State to claim possession. In
all matters pertaining to Ceiling laws, there
is a compulsory exaction and practically
confiscation of land through legislation, by
virtue whereof the land vests in the State
for further settlement to a beneficiary. In
our opinion, the beneficiary gets rights only
after the proceedings attain finality after
full
contest
subject
to
any
judicial
proceedings including the higher judiciary.
Thus, unless finality is attached with regard
to the vesting of the land in the State, a
beneficiary would not get any better title
than the State and would succeed only if
the land vests in the State. If the land is
held to be that of the tenure holder and if
the surplus declaration is held to be invalid
in judicial proceedings, the vesting of the
land in the State would dissolve and would
not be final and complete so as to allow the
beneficiary to claim any right title or
interest whatsoever.

17. The Development Authority has
not chosen to content the matter either by
filing
it's
petition
or
by
seeking
impleadment in this case. The petitionerstate has also not impleaded the Authority
as a co-petitioner or even a performa
respondent.

18. Consequently, writ petition has no
merits and is accordingly rejected. The
petitioner-State through the Collector and
the competent authority Urban Ceiling are
directed to correct the entries and restore
them
in
favour
of
the
answering
respondents accordingly.
----------
(2021)03ILR A740
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Special Appeal No. 326 of 2020
Connected with

Special Appeal Nos. 167 of 2020, 315 of
2020, 316 of 2020, 317 of 2020, 318 of
2020, 319 of 2020, 320 of 2020, 321 of
2020, 322 of 2020, 323 of 2020, 324 of
2020, 325 of 2020, 327 of 2020, 328 of
2020, 329 of 2020, 330 of 2020, 331 of
2020, 332 of 2020, 333 of 2020, 334 of
2020, 335 of 2020, 336 of 2020, 337 of
2020, 338 of 2020, 339 of 2020, 340 of
2020, 341 of 2020, 342 of 2020, 343 of
2020, 344 of 2020, 345 of 2020, 346 of
2020, 347 of 2020, 355 of 2020, 356 of
2020, 357 of 2020, 358 of 2020, 359 of
2020, 360 of 2020, 361 of 2020, 362 of
2020, 363 of 2020, 364 of 2020, 365 of
2020, 366 of 2020, 367 of 2020, 368 of
2020, 369 of 2020, 370 of 2020, 379 of
2020, 380 of 2020, 381 of 2020, 382 of
2020, 383 of 2020, 384 of 2020, 388 of
2020, 389 of 2020, 390 of 2020, 391 of
2020, 392 of 2020, 393 of 2020, 394 of
2020, 395 of 2020, 396 of 2020, 397 of
2020, 398 of 2020, 399 of 2020, 400 of
2020, 401 of 2020, 402 of 2020, 403 of
2020, 404 of 2020, 405 of 2020, 409 of
2020, 410 of 2020, 411 of 2020, 412 of
2020, 413 of 2020, 414 of 2020, 415 of
2020, 416 of 2020, 417 of 2020, 418 of
2020, 423 of 2020, 424 of 2020, 425 of
2020, 426 of 2020, 427 of 2020, 428 of
2020, 429 of 2020, 430 of 2020, 431 of
2020, 433 of 2020, 434 of 2020, 435 of
3 All. Kiran Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
741
2020, 436 of 2020, 437 of 2020, 438 of
2020, 441 of 2020, 442 of 2020, 443 of
2020, 447 of 2020, 448 of 2020, 449 of
2020, 450 of 2020, 451 of 2020, 452 of
2020, 453 of 2020, 454 of 2020, 455 of
2020, 456 of 2020, 457 of 2020, 458 of
2020, 459 of 2020, 460 of 2020, 461 of
2020, 462 of 2020, 466 of 2020, 467 of
2020, 468 of 2020, 469 of 2020, 470 of
2020, 471 of 2020, 472 of 2020, 473 of
2020, 474 of 2020, 477 of 2020, 478 of
2020, 479 of 2020, 480 of 2020, 482 of
2020, 483 of 2020, 484 of 2020, 485 of
2020, 487 of 2020, 488 of 2020, 489 of
2020, 490 of 2020, 491 of 2020, 496 of
2020, 497 of 2020, 498 of 2020, 499 of
2020, 500 of 2020, 501 of 2020, 502 of
2020, 503 of 2020, 504 of 2020, 505 of
2020, 506 of 2020, 507 of 2020, 508 of
2020, 509 of 2020, 510 of 2020, 511 of
2020, 512 of 2020, 513 of 2020, 514 of
2020, 515 of 2020, 518 of 2020, 519 of
2020, 520 of 2020, 521 of 2020, 522 of
2020, 523 of 2020, 524 of 2020, 525 of
2020, 526 of 2020, 527 of 2020, 528 of
2020, 529 of 2020, 530 of 2020, 531 of
2020, 532 of 2020, 533 of 2020, 534 of
2020, 535 of 2020, 536 of 2020, 537 of
2020, 538 of 2020, 539 of 2020, 540 of
2020, 541 of 2020, 542 of 2020, 543 of
2020, 544 of 2020, 545 of 2020, 546 of
2020, 547 of 2020, 548 of 2020, 549 of
2020, 550 of 2020, 551 of 2020, 552 of
2020, 556 of 2020, 558 of 2020, 559 of
2020, 560 of 2020, 561 of 2020, 562 of
2020, 563 of 2020, 564 of 2020, 565 of
2020, 566 of 2020, 567 of 2020, 568 of
2020, 569 of 2020, 570 of 2020, 571 of
2020, 572 of 2020, 573 of 2020, 574 of
2020, 575 of 2020, 576 of 2020, 577 of
2020, 578 of 2020, 579 of 2020, 580 of
2020, 581 of 2020, 582 of 2020, 583 of
2020, 584 of 2020, 585 of 2020, 586 of
2020, 587 of 2020, 588 of 2020, 589 of
2020, 590 of 2020, 591 of 2020, 592 of
2020, 593 of 2020, 594 of 2020, 595 of
2020, 596 of 2020, 597 of 2020, 598 of
2020, 599 of 2020, 600 of 2020, 601 of
2020, 602 of 2020, 603 of 2020, 604 of
2020, 605 of 2020, 606 of 2020, 607 of
2020, 608 of 2020, 609 of 2020, 610 of
2020, 611 of 2020, 612 of 2020, 613 of
2020, 614 of 2020, 615 of 2020, 616 of
2020, 617 of 2020, 618 of 2020, 619 of
2020, 620 of 2020, 621 of 2020, 622 of
2020, 623 of 2020, 624 of 2020, 625 of
2020, 626 of 2020, 627 of 2020, 628 of
2020, 629 of 2020, 630 of 2020, 631 of
2020, 632 of 2020, 633 of 2020, 634 of
2020, 635 of 2020, 636 of 2020, 637 of
2020, 638 of 2020, 639 of 2020, 640 of
2020, 641 of 2020, 642 of 2020, 643 of
2020, 644 of 2020, 645 of 2020, 646 of
2020, 647 of 2020, 648 of 2020, 649 of
2020, 650 of 2020, 651 of 2020, 652 of
2020, 653 of 2020, 654 of 2020, 655 of
2020, 656 of 2020, 657 of 2020, 658 of
2020, 659 of 2020, 660 of 2020, 661 of
2020, 662 of 2020, 663 of 2020, 664 of
2020, 665 of 2020, 666 of 2020, 667 of
2020, 668 of 2020, 669 of 2020, 670 of
2020, 671 of 2020, 672 of 2020, 673 of
2020, 674 of 2020, 675 of 2020, 676 of
2020, 677 of 2020, 678 of 2020, 679 of
2020, 680 of 2020, 681 of 2020, 682 of
2020, 683 of 2020, 684 of 2020, 685 of
2020, 719 of 2020, 730 of 2020, 736 of
2020, 737 of 2020, 738 of 2020, 739 of
2020, 740 of 2020, 741 of 2020, 742 of
2020, 743 of 2020, 744 of 2020, 745 of
2020, 746 of 2020, 748 of 2020, 749 of
2020, 762 of 2020, 763 of 2020, 764 of
2020, 765 of 2020, 766 of 2020, 768 of
2020, 769 of 2020, 770 of 2020, 771 of
2020, 772 of 2020, 773 of 2020, 777 of
2020, 780 of 2020, 781 of 2020, 782 of
2020, 783 of 2020, 784 of 2020, 785 of
2020, 786 of 2020, 787 of 2020, 788 of
2020, 789 of 2020, 795 of 2020, 796 of
2020, 797 of 2020, 798 of 2020, 799 of
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2020, 800 of 2020, 801 of 2020, 802 of
2020 and 6 of 2021
and with
Special Appeals (Defective) No. 837 of
2020, 981 of 2020, 1000 of 2020, 1032 of
2020, 1034 of 2020, 1035 of 2020, 1036 of
2020, 1037 of 2020, 1039 of 2020, 1041 of
2020, 1042 of 2020, 1043 of 2020, 1044 of
2020, 1045 of 2020, 1046 of 2020, 1047 of
2020, 1048 of 2020, 1049 of 2020, 1050 of
2020, 1051 of 2020, 1052 of 2020, 1102 of
2020, 1107 of 2020, 1112 of 2020, 1116 of
2020, 1122 of 2020, 1146 of 2020, 1157 of
2020, 1159 of 2020, 1164 of 2020, 1165 of
2020, 1170 of 2020, 1171 of 2020, 1173 of
2020, 1176 of 2020, 1177 of 2020, 1179 of
2020, 1221 of 2020, 1235 of 2020, 1237 of
2020, 1241 of 2020, 1250 of 2020, 1251 of
2020, 1252 of 2020, 1253 of 2020, 1255 of
2020, 1256 of 2020, 1258 of 2020, 1259 of
2020, 1266 of 2020, 1284 of 2020, 1322 of
2020 and 26 of 2021.

Kiran Lata Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare, Sri
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Sri Satya Prakash
Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Sri Gagan Mehta,
Sri Jagannath Maurya, Sri Nisheeth Yadav

A. Constitution of India - Article 311 -
UP Government Servant (Punishment &
Appeal)
Rules,
1999
-
Assistant
teacher - Termination - Appointment
sought based on fake or tempered
marksheet - No Department enquiry -
Effect - Held, Observance of the Rules
of
1999
and
Article
311
of
the
Constitution of India is not warranted
in the cases where appointment was
taken by fraudulent means - Procedure
given under the Rule of 1999 was not
required to be applied for an order of
termination in reference to fake or
tampered mark-sheets and degrees.
(Para 70 and 72)

B. Service law - Appointment based on
fake marksheet - Termination - 10
years delay in passing the termination
order - Effect - Held, issue of delay in
passing the order of termination is of
no substance - Mere rendering the
service for more than 10 years cannot
be a ground to set aside the order of
termination. If the prayer is accepted,
then it would mean endorsement of
fake or tampered mark-sheets - R.
Vishwanatha
Pillai's
case
of
the
Supreme Court followed. (Para 73, 74,
75 and 77)

Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Mahipal Singh Tomar Vs St. of U.P., (2013)
16 SCC 771

2. Inderpreet Singh Kahlon Vs St.of Punj. & ors.,
(2006) 11 SCC 356

3. U.O.I. & anr. Vs Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018)
15 SCC 463

4. St. of Bihar & ors. Vs Kirti Narayan Prasad,
(2019) 13 SCC 250

5. Punjab Urban Planning and Development
Authority & anr. Vs Karamjit Singh, AIR 2019 SC
1913; (2019) 16 SCC 782

6. Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad, AIR
1944 SC 1074

7. Nidhi Kaim & anr. Vs St. of M.P. & ors.,
(2017) 4 SCC 1

8. Bank of India & anr. Vs Avinash D.
Mandivikar & ors., (2005) 7 SCC 690

9. R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs St. of Kerala & ors.,
(2004) 2 SCC 105

10. Rita Misra & ors. Vs Director, Primary
Education, Bihar, AIR 1988 (Patna) 26
3 All. Kiran Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
743
x- f'k{kk lsok dkuwu & Hkkjr esa xq# dk egÙo o
;ksxnku & xq# nsoks Hko & ftEesnkj ukxfjd ds
:i esa Nk«k dk fuekZ.k & f'k{kd dk O;olk; ,d
ifo«k O;olk; gS] ;g dsoYk thfodk pYkkus dk
lk/ku ek«k ugha gS & "kSf{kd izfØ;k dh lQYkrk
cgqr dqN f'k{kd ij fuHkZj djrh gS] D;ksafd ;gh oks
f'k{kd gS] tks Nk«kksa esa mn~ns'; dk izR;kjksi.k vkSj
pfj«k dk fuekZ.k djrs gSa] blfYk, f'k{kd iz.kkYkh dh
{kerk ds fYk, f'k{kdksa dh xq.koÙkk] ;ksX;rk o pfj«k
dk lokZf/kd egÙo gS] ftlls Nk«k Hkfo'; esa ,d
ftEesnkj ukxfjd cu ldsaA 1⁄4iSjk 3] 4 ,oa 5 &
lgefr fu.kZ; }kjk U;k;ewfrZ lkSjHk ';ke 'ke'ksjh1⁄2

?k- f'k{kk lsok dkuwu & fu;qfDr izkIr djus esa NYk dk
iz;ksx & izHkko & /kks[kk/kM+h ifo«k d`R; dks Hkh
fu'izHkkoh dj nsrh gS & /kks[kk/kM+h vkSj U;k; ,d lkFk
ugha jgrs gSa & tks O;fDr izkjaHk ls gh NYk] diV o
/kks[kk/kM+h ds vk/kkj ij in izkIr fd;k gks] og f'k{kd
ds :i es Nk«kksa dks vPNs laLdkj ns ik;saxs] bldh
laHkkouk ux.; gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k] NYk ls
izkIr fu;qfDr izkjaHk ls gh "kwU; ekuh tk;sxh & ,slh
fu;qfDr ds dkj.k u dsoYk ;ksX; vH;FkhZ ds vf/kdkj
dk guu fd;k tkrk gS] cfYd vkus okYks ih<+h ds
Hkfo'; ij Hkh dqBkjk?kkr fd;k tkrk gS & dwVjfpr
nLrkost ls fu;qfDr ikus dk d`R; fu;ksDrk ds izfr
nqO;Zins'ku o NYk gS vkSj ,slh fu;qfDr dks jn~n djus
ds iwoZ u rks tkap dh vko';drk gS vkSj u gh YkEch
lsok vof/k dks cpko dk vk/kkj cuk;k tk ldrk gSA
1⁄4iSjk 9] 10 ,oa 11 & lgefr fu.kZ; }kjk U;k;ewfrZ
lkSjHk ';ke 'ke'ksjh 1⁄2

mYysf[kr iwoZ fu.kZ; :-

1- vfouk'k ukxjk cuke uoksn; fo|kYk; lfefr(
1⁄410971⁄2 2 ,l lh lh 534

2- lqf'erk oklq o vU; cuke cSYkhxqusa f'k{kk lfefr(
1⁄420061⁄2 7 ,l lh lh 680

3- egkjk'Va jkT; cuke fodkl lkgscjko jkmunYks(
1⁄419921⁄2 4 ,l lh lh 465

4- jke pUnz flag cuke lkfo«kh nsoh vkSj vU;( 1⁄420031⁄2
8 ,l lh lh 319
5- tSusUnz flag cuke mÙkj izns'k jkT;( 1⁄420121⁄2 8
,l lh lh 748

6- lq/kkdj ikBd vkSj vU; cuke mÙkj izns"k
jkT; o ,d vU;( 2019 1⁄411⁄2 ,- Mh- th- 589 1⁄4Mhch-1⁄2

7- fcgkj jkT; o vU; cuke nsosUnz "kekZ( 2019
,l lh lh vkWu Ykkbu ,l lh 1360

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare,
Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Sri Radha
Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Shivendu Ojha, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and
Smt. Arti Raje, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners/appellants. Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Sri Rama Nand Pandey,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri
Rajiv Singh is appearing for the State
Government, Sri Ashok Mehta, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Gagan Mehta is
appearing for the Agra University and Sri
J.N. Maurya, learned counsel is appearing
for the U.P. Education Board/Basic Shiksha
Adhikari.

2. The batch of appeals have been
filed
to
assail
the
judgment
dated
29.04.2020 whereby bunch of writ petitions
were decided.

3. The writ petitions were filed to
challenge the order passed by the District
Basic Education Officer by which the
appointments of the petitioners/appellants
on the post of Assistant Teacher were
cancelled/terminated. It was alleged that
appointments sought were based on fake or
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tampered mark-sheets/degrees of B.Ed.
Examination, 2005.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
AND PREVIOUS LITIGATION

4. The facts available on record and
taken into consideration by the learned
Single Judge, reflect that the education was
made a saleable product by the Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar University, Agra (for short
"University") and thereby the candidates,
who even did not appear in B.Ed.
Examination, 2005 were conferred with the
mark-sheet
and
degree.
The
other
allegation is for tampering of marks apart
from candidates having same roll numbers
on the mark-sheets.

5. The efface of the University came
in the knowledge of the Court when a
writ petition was filed by one Sunil
Kumar bearing Writ Petition No. 2906 of
2013 on issuance of two mark-sheets to
him
by
the
University
for
B.Ed.
Examination 2005. The learned Single
Judge hearing the said writ petition
directed the University to produce the
tabulation sheets of B.Ed. Examination,
2005. In pursuance to the direction
aforesaid, the tabulation sheets were
produced. It was not bearing signature of
any authorized officer/person of the
University. The learned Single Judge
hearing the said writ petition passed an
order on 28.02.2013 directing the Vice
Chancellor of the University to file an
affidavit
in
respect
to
the
B.Ed.
Examination 2005. The affidavit was
sworn.
The
learned
Single
Judge
observed cross list/tabulation sheets to be
manufactured documents in absence of
signature of the officer. It was admitted
by
the
University
that
tabulation
sheets/cross list are always signed by the
authorized officer/person otherwise it
cannot be accepted as genuine.

6. In pursuance to the subsequent
order dated 28.02.2013, the then Vice
Chancellor Professor D.N. Jauhar filed an
affidavit stating that a three member
inquiry committee was constituted on the
receipt of the complaint and information
regarding manipulation and discrepancies
in the mark charts. The committee found
following discrepancies-:

(i) Font of computer printing on some
pages are different from other pages;

(ii) Font quality on paper used in
different pages defers;

(iii) The signature of authorized
person of agency was also found different
on different pages.

7. The learned Single Judge hearing
the writ petition of Sunil Kumar passed
another order on 23.01.2014 for impartial
inquiry into the affairs of the University in
regard to B.Ed. Examination, 2005. In
pursuance to the order dated 23.01.2014,
the State Government constituted a Special
Investigation Team (For short "S.I.T.").
The writ petition of Sunil Kumar was then
treated to be a Public Interest Litigation,
thus to be placed before the Division
Bench. After referring the matter to the
Division Bench, the record of said writ
petition was not found traceable, thus
matter could not be heard for further
direction. The file was reconstituted in the
year 2020 pursuant to the order of the
Court.

8. The S.I.T. constituted by the State
Government submitted its report dated
14.08.2017 before this Court after the
investigation. As per the report, the
allegation of issuance of fake mark-sheets
3 All. Kiran Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
745
apart from tampered mark-sheets were
found based on the material collected
during the course of investigation/inquiry.

9. After receipt of the report from the
S.I.T., the University as well as the State
Government decided to take action in the
matter. The Director of Basic Education
issued
show
cause
notice
to
the
petitioners/appellants. The show cause
notice was challenged by a Writ Petition
(A) No. 56739 of 2017 (Smt. Suryavati and
150 others Vs. State of U.P. and 24
others). An interim order was passed
therein
to
continue
the
petitioners/appellants with payment of
salary. The Court, however, allowed the
Department to proceed in the matter in
accordance to Rules. It was followed by
large number of writ petitions.

10. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari
passed the order of termination pursuant to
the show cause notice. It was challenged
separately by maintaining a writ petition.
The first writ petition for it was Writ A No.
20244 of 2018 (Santosh Kuamr and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said writ
petition was dismissed by the judgment
dated 20.09.2018. The judgment in the case
of Santosh Kumar (supra) was challenged
by maintaining an appeal where an interim
order was passed.

11. The University also proceeded in
the matter and accordingly a notice was
published in the news papers requiring the
doubtful candidates to submit reply to the
questionnaire supported by material. The
validity of the show cause notice of the
University was also challenged by Writ A
No. 486 of 2020 (Tilak Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said writ
petition was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge by its judgment dated
20.01.2020
with
a
direction
to
the
University to proceed further in the matter.

12. In pursuance to the show cause
notice given by the University, majority of
candidates, alleged to have fake marksheets, did not submit any reply and in few
cases, reply was submitted with incomplete
information and documents or after the last
date for it. Only 18 candidates/students
submitted
proper
reply
along
with
documents. The University cancelled B.Ed.
degree of 2823 candidates by the order
dated 07.02.2020, who failed to submit
reply. The order dated 07.02.2020 was
passed during the pendency of the writ
petition. It was brought on record by way
of an affidavit by the University. The
hearing of the writ petition commenced
thereafter on different dates. The arguments
were
concluded
on
06.03.2020
and
thereupon the impugned judgment was
pronounced on 29.04.2020.

13. The learned Single Judge decided
the batch of writ petitions with certain
directions in paragraph 69 of the impugned
judgment which has been assailed by the
appellants herein.

14. In few appeals, there is delay and
in few appeals, an application to seek leave
for appeal has been submitted. The
application for condonation of delay so as
the leave to appeal are allowed as otherwise
no objection to it has been raised by the
side opposite. It is looking to the fact that
few appeals have been preferred within
limitation, thus, would be decided on
merits and judgments therein would apply
on all the appeals and accordingly even
leave to appeal is granted because the
applicants are either effected by the
impugned judgment or in their pending writ
petitions they cannot get result unless
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment in question is set aside. Thus,
prayed for leave and accordingly granted
for the ends of justice. Accordingly, all the
appeal were heard together.

15. Before we proceed to refer to the
arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants, it would be material to refer
judgment in the case of Tilak Singh &
others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A
468 of 2020. The said writ petition was
decided by the judgment dated 20.01.2020.
It is without causing interference the show
cause notice given by the University
though certain formalities were interfered
which were basically to have verification of
documents through the Principal etc. but no
interference in the material information
sought by the University was caused rather
a direction was given to the University to
proceed in the matter in regard to the
degrees which are alleged to be forged. The
procedure given under Section 67 of U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 was not
required to be applied for fake degrees
though it was mandated for the tampered
mark-sheet.

16. All the facts narrated above are
relevant and otherwise summarised by the
counsel for the appellants.

ARGUMENTS
OF
LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

17. Learned counsel submits that the
appellants were appointed on the post of
Assistant Teacher after undergoing the
selection as per U.P. Basic Education Staff
Rules, 1973 (in short "Rules of 1973"). All
the appellants were thus regular employees
and even granted promotion during the
intervening period. They could not have
terminated
from
service
without
a
departmental enquiry under the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Punishment
&
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (In short "Rules of
1999").
They
could not
have
been
terminated from service only by serving a
show cause notice. Learned Single Judge
failed to consider this aspect of the matter.
The show cause notice was even stayed in
the set of another litigation initiated by
Suryavati and 150 others (supra). During
currency
of
the
interim
order,
the
respondents could not have proceeded to
pass termination order. It is more so when
there was no material with the State
Government to infer B.Ed. degrees of the
appellants either fake or tampered. The
State Government could not have relied on
the report submitted by the S.I.T. It was
barely an opinion of the S.I.T. thus could
not have been treated to be substantive
piece of evidence. The report of the S.I.T.
would be tested by the court in the criminal
trial. Thus, the sole basis to terminate the
services of the appellants was not made
out.

18. It is further urged that the learned
Single Judge could not have decided the
writ petition in reference to the order dated
07.02.2020 passed by the University to
cancel the degrees finding it to be fake, as
no opportunity was given to them to assail
the order dated 07.02.2020. It is despite
their request.

19. The learned Single Judge decided
the writ petition after taking adverse
inference pursuant to the order of the
University dated 07.02.2020 cancelling the
degrees of the appellants. The Court should
have given opportunity to challenge the
order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the
University.

20. The learned Single Judge has even
drawn a statement to classify the number of
3 All. Kiran Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
candidates obtained fake mark-sheets while
others having tampered mark-sheets. The
third category is of the candidates having
mark-sheets with same roll numbers. The
statement of candidates given in the
judgment should not be relied as otherwise
S.I.T. has given data on their own
assumption.
The
appellants
have
challenged S.I.T. report in the case of Sunil
Kumar
(Supra)
which
petition
was
converted into Public Interest Litigation
and is yet to be decided. The finding of the
learned Single Judge that the appellants
have not challenged the S.I.T. report is thus
perversed.

21. The learned Single Judge has
relied the judgment in the case of Tilak
Singh (Supra) though the said writ petition
was against the show cause notice given by
the
University,
thus
dismissed.
The
judgment in the case of Tilak Singh
(Supra)
has
not
decided
any
issue
pertaining to the case rather directed the
University to proceed further in the matter,
thus no final decision was given holding
certain mark-sheet to be fake or tampered.
The learned Single Judge should not have
relied on the judgment in the case of Tilak
Singh (Supra).

22. The report of S.I.T. considered by
learned Single Judge was based on
superficial mathematical calculation. No
supporting material exist to arrive at the
calculation of eligible candidates for B.Ed.
Examination,
2005
with
the
figures
students actually appeared followed by
declaration
of
the
result
of
excess
candidates. The S.I.T. had failed to take
note of the judgment of Lucknow Bench in
the case of Shri Puran Prasad Gupta
Memorial Degree College Vs. State of
U.P. dated 06.04.2007 passed in Writ
Petition No.399 (M.B.) 2007 wherein a
direction was given to declare the result of
additional students. The S.I.T. failed to take
note of those students while making
calculation of the studens appeared in the
examination. Thus, there was no reason for
the learned Single Judge to place reliance
on the S.I.T. report.

23. It is also submitted that even if the
learned Single Judge was to proceed with a
matter in reference to the order dated
07.05.2020 passed by the University
cancelling the degrees, it should not have
been in ignorance of the fact that out of
total 3637 candidates, 814 candidates had
submitted reply but while passing the order
dated 07.02.2020, the University cancelled
the degree of all the candidates without
giving any reason. The order dated
07.02.2020 should not have been relied by
the learned Single Judge.

24. So far as finding regarding
tampered mark-sheet is concerned, the
judgment of learned Single Judge is in
ignorance of the fact the candidates had no
access to the record of the University to
become instrument to tamper the marksheet. In fact mark-sheets were issued
immediately with declaration of result.
Thus, there was no occasion for any
candidates to tamper the mark-sheet.

25. The tampering of mark-sheets in
fact did not effect even the candidature to
seek appointments on the post of the
Assistant Teacher as it was based on the
selection test where all the candidates
remained successful. It was also stated that
if candidates were involved in tampering of
the mark-sheets, their marks would not
have been reduced whereas in many cases,
marks
of
the
candidates
were
less
compared to the marks in the foil recovered
by the S.I.T. Thus, allegation of tampering
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of mark-sheet was not even made out. The
allegation of tampering of the mark-sheets
is also without any basis as neither
tabulation
sheets
were
available
nor
original marks foil were recovered by the
S.I.T. The record seized by the S.I.T. is
lying with it or with the Registrar of High
Court. The original marks foil may
accordingly be called to consider the
argument aforesaid.

26. In view of above, termination
order should have been interfered by the
learned Single Judge. The denial of wages
during the intervening period till the
University
passes
the
order
after
compliance of the procedure given under
Section 67 of the State Universities Act,
1973 in regards to tampered mark sheets is
also illegal.

27. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that if a direction is given to the
University to pass an order in regard to
tampered mark-sheets after following the
procedure given under Section 67 of the
Act, then appellants would have no
grievance rather submitted that subject to
the outcome of the order pursuant to it, the
order of termination be governed. If the
decision of the University comes adverse to
them then they would not question their
termination order but in case of favourable
report,
it
should
be
interfered
thus
appropriate order for it may be passed.

28. It is also submitted that the marks
foil recovered by the SIT is not of all the
papers of B.Ed. Examination rather is of
two papers only. The aforesaid should not
have been taken to be a decisive factor to
hold mark-sheets to be tampered.

29. Some of the counsel of the
appellants even challenged the order dated
07.02.2020 passed by the University
cancelling B.Ed. degrees of 2005 of 2823
candidates. It is
submitted that the
University proceeded to pass the order
dated 07.02.2020 solely based on the report
of SIT. It is by presuming admission of the
allegation by the candidates in absence of
reply to show cause notice containing a
questionnaire. The University could not
have cancelled the degrees only in
reference to the report of SIT. Thus the
order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the
University may also be interfered. The
learned counsel pressing the appeal for
challenge to the order dated 07.02.2020
submitted that an opportunity to challenge
the said order was not given by the learned
Single Judge, thus it has been challenged in
these appeals.

30. One set of the counsel appearing
for the appellants, however, submitted that
they do not prefer to challenge the order
dated 07.02.2020 in these appeals as for
that separate writ petitions can be filed or
even filed. The fact however remains that
one set of the appellants have challenged
the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the
University and accordingly, we need to
decide the issue aforesaid, otherwise this
judgment may be criticized alleging that
despite a challenge to the order dated
07.02.2020 passed by the University,
consideration of argument has not been
made by us. Accordingly, we proceed to
determine all the issues raised before us not
only in reference to the challenge to the
judgment of the learned Single Judge but
the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the
University.

31. No other arguments have been
raised by the appellants other than what
have been mentioned above. The written
arguments have been submitted by the
3 All. Kiran Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
749
counsel but we are confining to the oral
argument before this Court and otherwise
the written arguments should have been
confined to the oral argument made before
this Court.

32. The prayer of learned counsel for
appellants is to set aside the termination order
so as the judgment of learned Single Judge or
pass any other appropriate order in the fitness
of the case. The order dated 07.02.2020
passed by the University may also be
quashed. Learned counsel for the appellants
have cited judgments to support their
arguments which would be referred by this
Court while recording finding on the rival
submission of the parties.

33. The prayer of learned counsel for
appellants is to consider the documents
submitted on the direction of this Court to
show that the candidates were having
required documents to show their admission
in the college followed by payment of fee
apart from issuance of admit cards for
appearance in the examination followed by
other documents to show their appearance in
the examination. At this stage, it is also stated
that University has passed an order to cancel
remaining fake mark-sheets and degrees
other than of two students by the order dated
27.07.2020.
It
is
out
of
814
students/candidates.

ARGUMENTS
OF
LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR SIDE OPPOSITE

34. Per contra, the contest to the
appeals has been made by the counsel
appearing for the State and the University.
The have supported the judgment of the
learned Single Judge.

35. It is submitted by the Senior
Counsel appearing for the University that
pursuant to the direction of this Court in the
case
of
Sunil
Kumar
(supra),
the
University had initially constituted a
Committee
of
three
members.
The
Committee found that font of the cross
sheet/tabulation sheet is different on certain
pages. It is apart from the different font size
in the cross sheet/tabulation register. The
University, thus realized manipulation and
malpractices in the B.Ed. examination of
2005. It decided to proceed against the
officers involved in the manipulations.

36. The matter was referred to SIT by
the State Government for investigation
followed by a report in the light of the
direction in the case of Sunil Kumar
(supra). On the receipt of the report from
S.I.T., the State Government gave direction
to University to proceed in the matter and
accordingly the University decided to issue
show cause notice to the candidates by
publishing it in the newspaper requiring the
candidates to submit their reply to the
questionnaire with supporting material. The
show cause notice was challenged by Tilak
Singh and 495 other candidates. The writ
petition was dismissed vide judgment dated
20.01.2020
with
a
direction
to
the
University to proceed in the matter of fake
mark-sheets without observing Section 67
of the Act of 1973 but for tampered marksheets, to proceed under Section 67 of the
Act of 1973. The University accordingly
proceeded in compliance to the judgment in
the case of Tilak Singh (supra) as the
judgment in the said case was not
challenged thus attained finality.

37. In pursuance to the notice
published in the newspaper, reply was
submitted only by 814 candidates within
the time prescribed for it. It was out of
4766 candidates which was for fake degree
as well as tampered. 2823 candidates did
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not send reply to show cause notice while
814 candidates sent the reply, however out
of 814 also 796 candidates did not submit
complete information sought in the show
cause notice. Only 18 candidates submitted
proper reply with material. The University
thus proceeded to pass order dated
07.02.2020 holding that 2823 students are
having fake degrees. It is thus incorrect to
state that by the order dated 07.02.2020, all
the degrees were declared fake, which
includes the degrees of 814 candidates. It is
also incorrect that the University has
declared 2823 candidates to be fake based
on the report of the SIT. In fact, the report
of the SIT was the basis to initiate the
action
and
accordingly
proper
questionnaire
was
prepared
by
the
University to independently assess the
allegations. The failure of the candidates to
submit the reply was taken adverse. There
was no reason for the candidates not to
submit reply to the notice with relevant
materials. The University proceeded in the
matter pursuant to the direction of the
Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra).
Thus there is no illegality in the order dated
07.02.2020. The appellants have not
submitted any material even while filing
the appeal and direction of this Court other
than seven candidates those who had even
submitted reply to the show cause notice.

38. The learned counsel for the
University has given details of all the
students who could have appeared in B.Ed.
Examination of 2005. It is by referring to
the number of institutions recognized by
the N.C.T. and the students to be admitted
by each of the institutions. It is submitted
that out of total 82 institutions having
recognition from the N.C.T., each was
entitle to admit 100 students, 50 percent
through management quota and 50 percent
through counselling or 15 percent through
management quota and 85 percent through
counselling. A controversy regarding quota
through counselling came in reference to
25 self-financed/unaided colleges which
was subject matter of litigation and
pursuant
to
which,
many
selffinanced/unaided colleges, were permitted
to admit 135 students. The university
however declared the final results keeping
in mind the intake of each institution
though 135 students appeared in many selffinanced institutions. Thus, as per the
direction of the Court in the case of Sri
Puram Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree
College (supra), by the judgment dated
06.04.2007, result of all the students, who
appeared in the examination was declared.

39. Taking aforesaid to be an input, it
is submitted that maximum 9075 students
could have appeared in the examination if it
is figured out with 100 students for all the
82 colleges coming to 8200 with addition
of 35 students for 25 self-financed/unaided
institutions coming to 875 totalling to 9070.
It is the maximum number of students
though, admission was given to 8899
students.

40. 8899 students appeared in the
examination out of which 869 were those
who were admitted in excess to the
approved strength of 100 students pursuant
to the direction of the Lucknow Bench. In
fact,
in
all
the
self-financed/unaided
institutions, total excess admission were
869 against 35 additional seats given to it.
As against 8899 students appeared in the
examination, the result of 8930 students
was declared thereby it was in excess by 31
students. The marks foil recovered by the
S.I.T. proves the fact aforesaid. The
original marks foil was seen by the Court
as well as counsel for the appellants during
the course of argument. The tabulation
3 All. Kiran Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
751
chart/cross sheet of the University was
however
containing
result
of
12472
students.

41. In the light of the fact aforesaid,
even the counsel for the appellants have
admitted that result in the tabulation sheet
is in excess to students appeared in the
examination even pursuant to the direction
of Bench at Lucknow. The question
however raised by them is that the excess
students may not be the appellants but
others.

42. It is submitted that S.I.T. made
report based on the record recovered by them
from the University. The material recovered
by the S.I.T. was input for the action and
thereby University had issued show cause
notice to verify the truth after giving an
opportunity to the students. The students
failed to send reply to the questionnaire with
material. They were accordingly declared to
be fake students as otherwise they would
have given the reply to the questionnaire. It is
more so when this Court in the case of Tilak
Singh (supra) directed the University to
proceed with the matter in regard to fake
students and judgment in that case has
already attained finality. Thus, the learned
Single Judge has rightly drawn conclusion
about the fake students and for that there is no
basis to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020.
The petitioners/appellants have not submitted
any material or documents pursuant to
questionnaire even while challenging the
order of termination passed by the State
Government or now the order dated
07.02.2020 other than by few. It is even while
filing the appeal despite an opportunity for it.
The documents have been filed only by few
students who had otherwise submitted their
reply pursuant to the show cause notice of the
University. Thus, other than few students,
who are maximum 18 in number, none has
produced any material before the Court to
show truthfulness of their appearance in the
examination. Accordingly, no basis remains
to cause interference in the order dated
07.02.2020 and the order passed by learned
Single Judge. The University has even passed
an order dated 27.07.2020 to declare 812
students to be fake out of 814 students.

43. It is also stated that University has
proceed to cause disciplinary inquiry against
those involved in the racket.

44. So far as the allegation of tampering
of the mark-sheets is concerned, the
University would proceed to take action after
applying Section 67 of the Act of 1973.

45. Learned counsel has even made a
reference of the F.I.R. registered against
those indulged in issuance of fake marksheets so as the tampered. The charge-sheet
has also been filed pursuant to four F.I.Rs. It
is also stated that a Committee under the
Chairmanship of a retired Judge was
constituted to fix the responsibilities of those
officers
involved
in
this
case
and
accordingly respondents would proceed to
take action against all those officers
involved in this case.

46. Learned counsel for the University
further submits that during the course of
hearing of the case of Sunil Kumar (supra),
it was noticed that three bags of fake marksheets were found at the residence of
Principal of one affiliated college of the
University.