# Manjul Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 554
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13760 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manjul-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47446
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment on the post
of Assistant Teacher - Use of forged and
manufactured
documents
of
TET
certificate
-
No
rebuttal
of
to the
9 All Manjul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
document filed in counter affidavit - Held,
Petitioner would have no right to continue
on the post and receive salary. The very
foundation on which the appointment
rests is non-est--void abinitio - Nothing
further has to be done by the authorities
but to discontinue the appointment - In
permitting the petitioner to continue in
service and pay salary would perpetuate
fraud and misrepresentation that would
be negation of rule of law - High Court
imposed Cost of Rs. 1 Lakhs. (Para 10, 14
and 15)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court itself on the application of the
department. In the present case, admittedly,
no such application for extension of time
has been moved by the department and
despite taking cognizance of the fact that
this Court vide judgment and order dated
13.11.2019 has stipulated maximum period
of four months to pass final order
considering the enquiry report and such
period of four months was being expired on
23.04.2020, if the letter of the Chief Project
Manager is taken into account (Annexure
no.20 to the second writ petition) or on
24.03.2020 if the date of registered post
dated 19.11.2019 intimating the order dated
13.11.2019 is taken into account giving
advantage of five days of service of the
registered post. In any case, the final order
must have been passed on or before
23.04.2020
after
conclusion
of
the
departmental enquiry but the final order has
been passed on 02.06.2021 (Annexure
No.1) awarding punishment of recovery
and censure entry to the petitioner.

27. In view of what has been
considered above, the impugned order
dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Managing
Director which is contained as Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition is not sustainable
in the eyes of law being illegal, arbitrary
and unwarranted viz a viz violative of the
direction being issued by the Full Bench of
this Court in re:- Abhishek Prabhakar
Awasthi (supra).

28. Accordingly, the second writ
petition is hereby allowed.

29. Since the orders impugned in the
first writ petition have been merged in the
final order dated 02.06.2021 impugned in
the second writ petition and the second writ
petition has been allowed, therefore, the
first writ petition shall be deemed to have
been allowed in view of the aforesaid
terms, accordingly, the first writ petition is
allowed.

30. The writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the Office Memo dated
02.06.2021 passed by the Managing
Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation
Ltd., Lucknow which is contained as
Annexure No.01 to the writ petition.

31. The writ of mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties not to
implement the punishment order dated
02.06.2021 against the petitioner as the
same has been quashed thereby providing
all consequential service benefit to the
petitioner.

32. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A554
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 13760 of 2020

Manjul Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pravin Kumar, Sri Karma Singh Yadav,
Sri Rahul Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Appointment on the post
of Assistant Teacher - Use of forged and
manufactured
documents
of
TET
certificate
-
No
rebuttal
of
to the
9 All Manjul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
document filed in counter affidavit - Held,
Petitioner would have no right to continue
on the post and receive salary. The very
foundation on which the appointment
rests is non-est--void abinitio - Nothing
further has to be done by the authorities
but to discontinue the appointment - In
permitting the petitioner to continue in
service and pay salary would perpetuate
fraud and misrepresentation that would
be negation of rule of law - High Court
imposed Cost of Rs. 1 Lakhs. (Para 10, 14
and 15)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India & ors. Vs Jagdish Balaram
Bahira & ors. 2017 (8) SCC 670
2. Nidhi Kaim Vs St. of M.P.; (2017) 4 SCC 1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Case called out. No one has put in
appearance on behalf of the petitioner to
press the petition despite notice.

2. Heard Shri Shailendra Singh,
learned counsel appearing for first, second,
third and fifth respondent and learned
standing counsel.

3. Pursuant to order dated 26 March
2021, the second and third respondents are
present.

4. By the instant writ petition,
petitioner seeks a direction to the second
respondent-Assistant
Director
Basic,
Gorakhpur Mandal Basti, with regard to
payment of salary.

5. The facts briefly stated is that the
petitioner came to be appointed Assistant
Teacher in Pt. Dindayal Purva Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Bitia, Belhar, District Sant
Kabir Nagar, on 15 March 2016. The
institution is in the grant-in-aid of the State.
On 7 April 2017, salary of the petitioner
was stopped on an allegation that the
petitioner had obtained appointment on the
strength of forged documents.

6. The third respondent-Finance and
Accounts Officer (Basic Education), Sant
Kabir Nagar, has filed affidavit, wherein, it
has been stated that petitioner applied
pursuant to an advertisement issued by the
fourth
respondent-Committee
of
Management of the Institution inviting
applications for the post of Assistant
Teacher. Petitioner came to be appointed
on the approval granted by the fifth
respondent-Basic Education Officer, Sant
Kabir Nagar.

7. It is urged that petitioner joined the
post on 17 March 2016. On complaint
being received that the petitioner has
obtained
appointment
on
forged
documents, the second respondent vide
communication
dated
7
April
2017,
directed the fifth respondent to enquire into
the matter and pending enquiry the salary
of the petitioner was stopped. In the
meantime, a complaint being Case Crime
No. 273 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 and 471 IPC, came to be lodged
against petitioner, his father, the then Basic
Shiksha Adhikari-Shri Mahendra Pratap
Singh and the Manager of the Institution on
5 June 2018. The Investigating Officer
verified the roll number of B.Sc.-III
marksheet of the petitioner from the
Mahatma Gandhi P.S. College, Gorakhpur.
It was informed that the roll number noted
on the marksheet submitted by the
petitioner was allotted to one Tufail
Ahmad, son of, Rahmat Ali. In other
words, petitioner had submitted the marksheet (B.Sc.-III) of the same roll number.
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Further,
the
intermediate
mark-sheet
submitted by the petitioner against roll
number 1132323 was also found to be a
forged document.

8. It is alleged that father of the
petitioner, a clerk, in the office of Basic
Shiksha Adhikari had managed the
forged
documents
to
obtain
appointment of the son. It is urged that
father of the petitioner and the then
Basic Shiksha Adhikari in connivance
with the petitioner obtained forged
documents pertaining to the educational
qualification
of
the
petitioner
i.e.
Intermediate and B.Sc.-III year, as well
as, Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
certificate. All documents relied upon
by the petitioner and the copies of the
original
marksheets/certificates
have
been placed on record.

9. The T.E.T. certificate for the
year 2011 submitted by the petitioner
bears Roll No. 10040855 issued to a
candidate
belonging
to
backward
category (OBC), wheres, the authorities
have submitted copy of the original
document,
wherein,
the
said
roll
number
was
allotted
to
Kalpana
Tripathi, belonging to general category,
and she failed to qualify the T.E.T.
examination. The T.E.T. certificate
submitted by the petitioner bears the
same roll number. In other words the
document is a forged and manufactured
document.

10. The petitioner has not filed any
rebuttal
to
the
aforementioned
documents placed on record by the
respondents.

11. Supreme Court in Chairman and
Managing Director, Food Corporation of
India and others vs. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira and others, 2017 (8) SCC 670,
held that:

"Thus, where a benefit is secured
by an individual - such as an appointment
to a post or admission to an educational
institution - on the basis that the candidate
belongs to a reserved category for which
the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of
the caste or tribe claim upon verification
would result in the appointment or, as the
case may be, the admission being rendered
void or non est."

12. It follows that when a candidate is
found to have put forth a false claim on the
strength of forged and manufactured
documents and obtained appointment, it
would be a negation of the rule of law to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to
protect that individual. Societal good lies in
ensuring probity. That is the only manner
in which the sanctity of the system can be
preserved. The legal system cannot be seen
as an avenue to support those who make
untrue claims based on forged educational
documents.

13. The nation cannot live on a lie.
Courts play a vital institutional role in
preserving the rule of law. The judicial
process should not be allowed to be utilized
to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve
the benefits which have accrued to an
imposter on the specious plea of equity.
(Refer: Nidhi Kaim vs. State of M.P.
(2017) 4 SCC 1)

14. It is not disputed by the petitioner
that the documents were duly verified by
the
competent
authorities
and
the
authorities conferring the certificates have
certified that the documents relied upon by
the petitioner are forged and manufactured
9 All Dr. Sushil Chandra Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
documents. Petitioner in the circumstances
would have no right to continue on the post
and receive salary. The very foundation on
which the appointment rests is non-est --
void abinitio. Nothing further has to be
done by the authorities but to discontinue
the
appointment.
In
permitting
the
petitioner to continue in service and pay
salary
would
perpetuate
fraud
and
misrepresentation that would be negation of
rule of law. Petitioner, his father (clerk) and
the then Basic Education Officer were
throughout aware that petitioner had
obtained the appointment by fraud.

15. In view thereof, the writ petition
is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be
deposited by the petitioner with the fifth
respondent within one month from date,
failing which, the same shall be recovered
as arrears of land revenue by the District
Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar. The State
respondents
shall
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
then
Basic
Education Officer forthwith.
----------
(2021)09ILR A557
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 14287 of 2021

Dr. Sushil Chandra Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amol Kumar, Alok Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Civil Service Regulations
- Reg. 370 - Pension, Right to get it -
Requirement
of
ten
years
qualifying
service - Non completion - Adhoc Service,
its relevancy in counting the service -
Pension
released
in
compliance
of
Judgment and order dated 22.07.2014
passed in petitioner's writ petition and
contempt proceeding - No objection of
non-completion of ten years qualifying
service was raised - Stopping pension
after lapse of six years - No opportunity of
hearing - No explanation sought - Validity
- Held, petitioner has rendered qualifying
pensionery service with effect from the
date
of
his
initial
joining
in
the
department in question, so the same shall
be treated as service qualifying for
pension and pensioner benefits - High
Court quashed impugned order. (Para 36
and 42)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Deokinandan Prasad Vs St. of Bihar; 1971 (2)
SCC 305
2. Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019; Prem Singh Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.
3. Secretary, St. of Karn. & ors. Vs Uma Devi;
2006 (4) SCC 1
4. Writ Petition No. 1573 (S/B) of 2012; Dr.
Sushil Chandra Tiwari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.
5. Civil Appeal No. 2898 of 2021; Rashi Mani
Mishra & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
6. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department Vs
Narendra Kumar Tripathi; (2015) 11 SCC 80
7. Santosh Kumar & ors. Vs G.R. Chawla & ors.
(2003) 10 SCC 513
8. St. of Urrarakhand Vs Archana Shukla; (2011)
15 SCC 194
9. Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers'
Association; (1990) 2 SCC 715
10. Dr. Chandra Prakash & ors.Vs St. of U.P.;
(2002) 10 SCC 710