# Nevtej Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 679
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10716 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nevtej-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53748
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sanjay Kumar
Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
petitioner
obtained
State
employment
fraudulently
or
the
State
functionaries committed an unintentional error
in issuance of Certificate for Dependent of
Freedom Fighter to the petitioner.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Assistant Teacher - Dependents
of Freedom Fighter (DFF) Certificate - Alleged
Forgery - Clerical Error - No Misrepresentation
- Fraud must be proved - Termination illegal -
Reinstatement ordered.
Held
:
Entitlement of the petitioner under the DFF
category was never in dispute. The sole basis
for termination was the observation that the
certificate dated 04.04.2008 was not traceable
at serial no. 1114 in the office records.
Subsequent issuance of a fresh certificate dated
01.04.2021
by
the
competent
authority
categorically reaffirmed the correctness of the
petitioner's DFF status. Only the endorsement of
the certificate dated 04.04.2008 at serial no.
1114 was questioned, and the Court found that
this was not within the domain of the petitioner,
nor could he have played any role in
maintaining
the
relevant
records
of
the
concerned office. No fraud, as alleged in the
impugned order, appeared to have been played
by the petitioner. Issuance of a certificate owing
to an error or oversight of the competent
authority cannot be construed as forgery,
particularly when the same authority has
subsequently
issued
a
rectified
certificate
acknowledging the mistake. If a certificate is
issued
due to the fault, negligence, or
administrative lapse of the issuing authority,
and there is no evidence of manipulation,
falsification,
or
misrepresentation
by
the
petitioner, it does not amount to forgery in law.
Where an appointment is granted due to the
department's own mistake and the beneficiary
has not committed any misrepresentation,
punitive action cannot be taken unless mala fide
intent is proved. Fraud must be established by
cogent evidence; mere irregularity in issuance of
a document by the authority does
not
automatically amount to fraud or forgery on the
part of the recipient. Order dated 31.07.2021
quashed; petitioner directed to be reinstated
forthwith. (Paras 11-24)

CASE LAW CITED

## Text

8 All. Nevtej Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
679
from service after taking note of gravity of
offence and judgment of conviction.

18. Accordingly, this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order, hence, present writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 679
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 10716 of 2021

Nevtej Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sanjay Kumar
Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
petitioner
obtained
State
employment
fraudulently
or
the
State
functionaries committed an unintentional error
in issuance of Certificate for Dependent of
Freedom Fighter to the petitioner.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Assistant Teacher - Dependents
of Freedom Fighter (DFF) Certificate - Alleged
Forgery - Clerical Error - No Misrepresentation
- Fraud must be proved - Termination illegal -
Reinstatement ordered.
Held
:
Entitlement of the petitioner under the DFF
category was never in dispute. The sole basis
for termination was the observation that the
certificate dated 04.04.2008 was not traceable
at serial no. 1114 in the office records.
Subsequent issuance of a fresh certificate dated
01.04.2021
by
the
competent
authority
categorically reaffirmed the correctness of the
petitioner's DFF status. Only the endorsement of
the certificate dated 04.04.2008 at serial no.
1114 was questioned, and the Court found that
this was not within the domain of the petitioner,
nor could he have played any role in
maintaining
the
relevant
records
of
the
concerned office. No fraud, as alleged in the
impugned order, appeared to have been played
by the petitioner. Issuance of a certificate owing
to an error or oversight of the competent
authority cannot be construed as forgery,
particularly when the same authority has
subsequently
issued
a
rectified
certificate
acknowledging the mistake. If a certificate is
issued
due to the fault, negligence, or
administrative lapse of the issuing authority,
and there is no evidence of manipulation,
falsification,
or
misrepresentation
by
the
petitioner, it does not amount to forgery in law.
Where an appointment is granted due to the
department's own mistake and the beneficiary
has not committed any misrepresentation,
punitive action cannot be taken unless mala fide
intent is proved. Fraud must be established by
cogent evidence; mere irregularity in issuance of
a document by the authority does
not
automatically amount to fraud or forgery on the
part of the recipient. Order dated 31.07.2021
quashed; petitioner directed to be reinstated
forthwith. (Paras 11-24)

CASE LAW CITED
1. State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, 2019
Supreme (SC) 1158;
2. Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022
Supreme (SC) 982;
3. Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P.,
2024:AHC:177954;
4. Ahire Ajinkya Shankar v. Indian Coast Guard,
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5726;
5. Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12
SCC 342.

List of Acts
 Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Assistant Teacher; DFF Certificate; Forgery
Allegation; Certificate Verification; Clerical Error;
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Fraud
Standard;
Administrative
Lapse;
Misrepresentation; Termination; Reinstatement.

CASE ARISING FROM
Termination order dated 31.07.2021 passed by
District Basic Education Officer, Ballia directing
dismissal and salary recovery.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior
Advocate; Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Sri Sanjay
Chaturvedi; Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh

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

1. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has challenged an order dated
31.07.2021 passed by third respondent1,
whereby services of the petitioner, who is
an Assistant Teacher, have been terminated
on the ground that he is alleged to have
obtained appointment on the basis of
forged certificate of freedom fighter's
dependent. By the order impugned, he has
also been directed to deposit the salary
back, received by him, into the State
Exchequer.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in Junior Basic School, Yadav
Basti Chibbi, Block Chilkahar, Ballia,
under the category of dependents of
freedom fighter2. He joined his services on
22.10.2020 and since then he has been
working on the aforesaid post. During
verification of documents, it revealed that
dependent certificate of freedom fighters
dated 04.04.2008 as provided by the
petitioner is not available at Sl. No. 1114 in
the relevant records of District Magistrate,
Ballia - fourth respondent, whereas name
of one Harmeet Singh is mentioned at Sl.
No. 1114. Thereafter, the third respondent
issued a show cause notice to the petitioner
on 24.03.2021. The petitioner approached
the office of fourth respondent, whereupon
he was issued another certificate on
01.04.2021. The petitioner appeared before
the third respondent and submitted his
reply on 06.04.2021 and placed all relevant
documents along with the certificate issued
on 01.04.2021. The third respondent issued
another show cause notice to the petitioner
on 01.07.2021 asking about the issuance of
two certificates for the dependent of
freedom fighter issued on 04.04.2008 and
01.04.2021. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
submitted a detailed reply on 24.07.2021,
appending all the relevant records including
documents of his late grandfather showing
that he was a freedom fighter. The third
respondent
by
the
order
impugned
terminated the petitioner's services on the
ground that the certificate dated 04.04.2008
appears to be forged. Said order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is the dependent
of freedom fighter late Shubh Narain
Singh. His date of birth is 15.07.1991. He
was issued a certificate of dependent of
freedom fighter, bearing no. 1114 dated
04.04.2008 by the fourth respondent, when
he was about sixteen and half years old. An
advertisement was issued on 18.01.2021
inviting applications for the posts of
Assistant Teachers. The petitioner, being
the dependent of freedom fighter, applied
under the said category. He appended the
certificate issued by the fourth respondent
on 04.04.2008 along with his application
form.

4. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that being eligible
for the post of Assistant Teacher, the
petitioner was selected as an Assistant
Teacher and was posted at Junior Basic
8 All. Nevtej Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
681
School,
Yadav
Basti,
Chibbi,
Block
Chilkahar, District Ballia. He joined his
services
at
the
said
institution
on
22.10.2020. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that the petitioner
was discharging his duties with sincerity
and utmost dedication and there was no
complaint whatsoever against him.

5. During verification, all documents
submitted by the petitioner were found
genuine, however, with respect to the
certificate for dependent of a freedom
fighter, of the petitioner, it was informed by
the fourth respondent that at Sl. No. 1114,
against which the petitioner is said to have
been issued said certificate, name of one
Harmeet Singh is mentioned. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that
the fourth respondent did not raise any
suspicion over the validity of petitioner's
certificate. The petitioner being a bonafide
person, on issuance of show cause notice
by the third respondent dated 24.03.2021,
moved again before the fourth respondent
for issuance of certificate of dependent of
freedom fighter to him, whereupon the
certificate dated 01.04.2021 was issued
categorically reiterating the fact as was
noted in previously issued certificate dated
04.04.2008, that the petitioner belongs to
the category of dependents of freedom
fighter. Thus, there is no dispute regarding
the truthfulness of the fact that the
petitioner
falls
under
DFF
category,
however, the entire issue which has
resulted in the present proceedings, is only
account of the some clerical error on the
part office of fourth respondent though it
was not under the supervision of applicant
or his guardians to have verified the serial
number or dispatch number while issuing
certificate
dated
04.04.2008.
The
genuineness of the fact is proven again by
the concerned authority on issuance of
certificate
dated
01.04.2021
that
the
petitioner genuinely falls under the relevant
category of DFF against which his
appointment as Assistant Teacher is made.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further contended that there is no
suppression,
concealment
or
misrepresentation at petitioner's end. The
mistake or error, if any, might have been a
clerical one, which does not even alter the
genuineness of petitioner's eligibility under
DFF
category.
In
support
of
his
submissions,
he
has
relied
upon
a
judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court
passed in the case of Neeraj Kumar v.
State of U.P. and others3.

7.
Learned
counsels
for
the
respondents submit that the petitioner
obtained his appointment by playing fraud
as he enclosed a forged certificate of
freedom fighter, as is evident from the
verification report obtained from the office
of fourth respondent, which says that name
of one Harmeet Singh is mentioned at Sl.
No. 1114. Before passing the order
impugned, the petitioner was afforded due
opportunity of hearing, however, instead of
proving
his
DFF
certificate
dated
04.04.2008 to be genuine, he placed
another certificate dated 01.04.2021. It has
further been contended that petitioner's
services were terminated because he
submitted a certificate which was not
endorsed in the relevant records of fourth
respondent at Sl. No. 1114.

8. It has further been contended that
the petitioner has committed fraud as he
obtained his appointment on the basis of a
forged certificate and it is a well settled law
that fraud vitiates even the solemn
proceedings in any civilized system of
jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents
have
relied
upon
the
judgements of Apex Court in the case of
The State of Bihar and others v.
Devendra Sharma4; Satish Chandra
Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 5, and a
judgement of this Court passed in the case
of Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and
others6.

9. I have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh
Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for
the
petitioner,
Sri
Ashish
Kumar
Nagvanshi,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the State and Sri
Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 3.

10. The facts of the case and
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, germinate sole question for
consideration, that would conclude the
controversy concisely in precision. The
question is - 'whether the petitioner
obtained State employment fraudulently or
the State functionaries committed an
unintentional
error
in
issuance
of
Certificate for Dependent of Freedom
Fighter to the petitioner.

11.
Indisputably,
the
petitioner
belongs to DFF category. Said fact is not
questioned
even
by
the
respondent
authorities at any stage. Here, the question
arises, has the petitioner played any fraud
or forgery in obtaining the certificate in
question. Barely, the answer would be in
affirmative, if he would have been
beneficiary
by
the
suppression
of
information on the basis of which the
certificate is issued, and, the answer is in
negative if no inadmissible favour is
awarded on the basis of said certificate.

12. In the present case, the certificate
of DFF was issued to the petitioner on
04.04.2008, when he was about sixteen and
a half years old. He earned academics and
being eligible for the post of Assistant
Teacher,
applied
pursuant
to
the
advertisement issued on 18.01.2021, at the
age
of
31
years,
appending
the
aforementioned
certificate.
During
verification, said certificate was not found
to have been endorsed at the given serial
number
i.e.
1114.
The
petitioner
subsequently obtained another certificate of
DFF
on
01.04.2021.
Thereafter,
the
impugned termination order has been
passed alleging discrepancies in said two
certificates,
without
alluding
to
any
incorrect or deceitful information regarding
DFF category, on the basis of which the
certificates were issued.

13. Arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner obtained appointment on the
basis of a forged certificate do not
corroborate the premise, on which the
impugned order stands for. Impugned
termination order does not refer any
fraudulent exercise or submission of a
forged document on the part of petitioner.

14.
The
judgement
referred
to
hereinabove by the learned counsel for the
respondents in Devendra Sharma (supra)
holds the law about the irregular appointments
obtained by way of backdoor entries, act of
nepotism, favourtism and illegal appointments
got on the basis of forged documents.
Pertinently, there is no allegation of forgery or
suppression against the petitioner in the
present case, thus, the said judgement does not
nourish the arguments of learned counsel for
the respondents.
8 All. Nevtej Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
683

15. Insofar as the judgement cited by
learned counsel for respondents in Satish
Chandra Yadav (supra), is concerned, it
is about the public employment obtained by
an employee on the basis of false
declaration and suppression of relevant and
concerned information. Here, in the instant
case, no allegation of such nature is
levelled
against
the
petitioner.
This
judgement also does not support the
respondents' version.

16. In the case referred by learned
counsel for the respondents in Saurabh
Srivastava (supra), a Coordinate Bench of
this Court has been pleased to deal in detail
with the act of fraud by an incumbent, who
obtained employment on the basis of
fraudulent educational certificates. In the
present case, the alleged certificate dated
04.04.2008 issued to the petitioner is not
proven to have been obtained fraudulently
as the concerned authority has again issued
certificate of DFF to the petitioner on
01.04.2021, therefore, this judgement also
does not hold the field, insofar as the facts
of the case in hand are concerned.

17. Recently, the Delhi High Court in
the case of Ahire Ajinkya Shankar v.
Indian
Coast
Guard
and
others7,
observing about the purpose of document
verification and mismatch, which were
found during verification, has held as
under:

"13. We need not reiterate that
the purpose of document verification is to
ensure that there is no impersonation,
misleading
or
incorrect
documents
furnished to seek enlistment. The aforesaid
alleged mismatch cannot be, by any stretch
of imagination, labeled as discrepancy or
furnishing of any false information. Mere
inadvertent mentioning or non-mentioning
of surname in caste certificate issued by the
Competent Authority would not mean and
indicate that it is a case of impersonation or
furnishing of false information. The details
have been filled up as per the contents of
the certificates available with the petitioner.
Moreover, the alleged mismatch is not such
an error which could have led to rejection
of the candidature of the petitioner,
particularly, in view of the fact that there is
nothing which may even remotely indicate
that
these
are
forged
or
procured
documents. The caste certificate ought to
have been read in conjunction with other
documents. A holistic view of the matter
would not suggest that the petitioner is not
a bonafide candidate."

18. In the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed
v. State of Bihar & others8, wherein the
appellant
therein,
was
not
found
responsible
for
making
any
false
declaration or suppression of any material
fact for securing appointment, the Supreme
Court has held that the State is not entitled
to take advantage of their own mistake if
they felt it to be so. Relevant part of the
said judgement reads thus:

"15. ...In any case, we are of the
view that whether it was a conscious
decision of the State to give appointment to
the appellant as we have held above or a
case of mistake on the part of the State in
giving appointment to the appellant which
now as per the State was contrary to the
policy as held by the learned Single Judge,
the State by their own conduct having
condoned their lapse due to passage of time
of 15 years, it was too late on the part of
the State to have raised such ground for
cancelling the appellant's appointment and
terminating his services. It was more so
because the appellant was not responsible
for making any false declaration nor he
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suppressed any material fact for securing
the appointment. The State was, therefore,
not entitled to take advantage of their own
mistake if they felt it to be so. The position
would have been different if the appellant
had committed some kind of fraud or
manipulation or suppression of material
fact for securing the appointment. ..."

(Emphasis supplied)

19. The process of issuance of a
certificate and its endorsement in the
records is the duty of concerned office, and
it cannot be expected to have been done by
the applicant. It is a settled position of law
that the certificate or appointment issued on
the basis of documents available with the
department, the employee had no role in
manipulation or misrepresentation, thus, it
cannot be treated as fraudulent.

20. In view of the settled position of
law,
as
discussed
in
the
preceding
paragraphs, if an appointment or benefit is
granted by the department due to its own
mistake, and the beneficiary has not
committed any misrepresentation, then
punitive action cannot be taken unless
malafide intent is proved.

21. It has also been settled that a
candidate cannot be held guilty of fraud or
forgery
unless
there
is
deliberate
suppression or misrepresentation of facts
by him in obtaining the certificate. If, a
certificate is wrongly issued by the
authority, and the candidate has not played
any active role in its issuance, no
fraudulent intent can be imputed.

22. In the present case, entitlement of
the petitioner under the relevant category of
DFF is not disputed, rather only the
endorsement of certificate dated 04.04.2008
at a particular serial number, i.e., 1114, is
being questioned, to which this Court finds
that it was not under the domain of the
petitioner nor the petitioner could have
played any role to maintain the relevant
record of the concerned office. No fraud, as
alleged in the order impugned, appears to
have been played by the applicant. Fraud
must be proved by cogent evidence, mere
irregularity in issuance of a document by
authority does not automatically amount to
fraud or forgery on part of the recipient.

23. In view of the above discussion, it is
evident that the issuance of a certificate to the
petitioner owing to an error or oversight on
the part of the competent authority cannot be
construed as forgery, particularly when the
said authority has later issued a rectified
certificate acknowledging the mistake. If the
certificate was issued due to the fault,
negligence, or administrative lapse of the
issuing authority and there is no evidence of
manipulation,
falsification,
or
misrepresentation by the petitioner, it does
not amount to forgery under law. No fault is
found to have been proved on the part of the
petitioner in obtaining the DFF certificate.

24. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and the settled
position of law, this Court finds that the case
is made out in favour of the petitioner and the
order impugned is unsustainable. Thus, the
order impugned dated 31.07.2021 is quashed
and the respondent no. 2 - District Basic
Education Officer, Ballia is directed to
reinstate the services of the petitioner
allowing him to function on the post of
Assistant Teacher, forthwith.

25. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.

26. No order as to costs.
8 All. Kumari Sonam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
685
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 685
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 11406 of 2025

Kumari Sonam ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar Prajapati, Kuldeep Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the sister-in-law (jethani) came within
definition of 'family' of the petitioner for the
purposes of selection and appointment on the
post of Anganbari Worker and so whether bar
imposed under GO dated 21.05.2023 can be
enforced?

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment
-
Anganbari
Worker
-
Petitioner's sister-in-law (Jethani) was
also appointed as Anganbari Assistant -
No notice was given - Principle of natural
justice - Applicability - Bar was imposed
under GO dated 21.05.2023 that two
ladies of same family cannot be appointed
- Relevancy - Ground of living in separate
family was taken - Definition of family
also felt into consideration:
Held : Daughter-in-law (jethani) would not
become member of the family and daughter-inlaw (jethani) can be considered to be a member
of family provided both brothers are living
together having common kitchen and house - It
cannot be said that both sister-in-law (jethani)
and petitioner were women of the same family,
and hence, order impugned
is rendered
unsustainable on both grounds of violation of
principles of natural justice and also on merits.
[Paras 12 and 13] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Writ C No. 21935 of 2021, Smt. Kusum
Lata v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided
on 29.11.2021 - referred to.

List of Acts
Civil Procedure Code - O. XXXII-A, R. 6; The
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974.

List of Keywords
Appointment; Anganbari Worker; Cancelation;
Jethani; Anganbari Assistant; Family; Notice;
Opportunity of hearing; Bar; Definition of family;
Separate house; Definition of family; Medical
assistant; Dying in harness Rule; Principle of
natural justice.

Case Arising From
Order dated 13.06.2025 cancelling appointment
of petitioner as Anganbari Worker.

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

1.Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2.By means of present petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
order dated 13.6.2025 passed by District
Programme Officer, Bareilly cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari
Worker
chiefly
on
the
ground
that
petitioner's sister-in-law (jethani) was also
working as Anganbari Assistant in the
same block and the Government Order
does not permit the posting of two women
of the same family at same centre as
Anganbari
Worker
and
Anganbari
Assistant.

3.Assailing
the
order
impugned,
learned counsel for the petitioner in the first