# Pankaj Mathur v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1038
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-10
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 12336 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-mathur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53852
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C., Shashi Kant Srivastava

Issues for consideration
 Whether an employer is justified in cancelling
an appointment, obtained on the basis of
misrepresentation, without holding a detailed
departmental inquiry?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921: Clause 17(1)(2),
Clause
19(9)
-
It
is
a
settled
proposition
of
law
that
any
appointment secured on the basis of
fraud,
concealment
or
misrepresentation does not confer any
legal right upon the incumbent. Fraud
vitiates every solemn act. Honesty and
integrity are the basic requirements for
public employment, and suppression of
material
information
or
misrepresentation would render the
appointment invalid. (Para 26, 29)

The petitioner, having obtained appointment by
misrepresentation of facts and by playing fraud
upon the authorities, cannot be permitted to
retain
the
fruits
of
such
illegality.
His
appointment, being tainted from the very
inception, is void ab initio and non est in the
eyes of law. (Para 22)
9 All. Pankaj Mathur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1039
B. The principle of natural justice has no
application in such a case where fraud
unravels everything. "Fraud and justice
never dwell together." (Para 32)

When the very foundation of an appointment is
based upon falsehood and concealment, no
equity can be claimed by the incumbent. The
employer is fully justified in cancelling such an
appointment
without
holding
a
detailed
departmental inquiry. When an appointment is
obtained by suppression of facts such as double
passing of examinations, manipulation of date of
birth, or enhancement of marks without
disclosure, such employment is void ab initio.
No vested right accrues to the petitioner, and
the appointing authority is entitled to cancel the
appointment forthwith, without conducting a
detailed departmental inquiry. (Para 23, 24)

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher pursuant to the selection process
conducted by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. It
subsequently came to light that the petitioner
had passed the High School as well as the
Intermediate Examinations on two occasions.
While applying for public employment, the
petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of
having appeared twice in the said examinations.
Not only this, the petitioner secured benefit of
the altered DOB and enhanced marks obtained
in
the
subsequent
examination,
without
disclosing the same to the appointing authority.
Upon discovery of the concealment, the
respondents cancelled the appointment of the
petitioner treating it to be void ab initio. (Para
25)

C. Once an appointment is shown to be
procured by concealment of fact, the
action of the authority is not a termination
of
service
(which
presupposes
valid
service) but a declaration that no valid
appointment ever existed. The petitioner's
plea that a regular departmental inquiry should
have preceded cancellation is unsustainable.
The procedural protections under service rules
for valid incu

## Text

1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
death. Death of Smt Sangeeta Bajpai
having occurred on 23.04.2021 and the
petitioner having got married with the son
of Smt Sangeeta Bajpai almost 2 years later
on 15.02.2023 would thus clearly take
away the petitioner from the ambit of
'member of family' as defined in Regulation
103 of the Regulations.

25. The matter could have been
otherwise had the son of Smt Sangeeta
Bajpai i.e. the husband of the petitioner
being appointed on compassionate grounds
on account of death of Smt Sangeeta Bajpai
and after his death, the petitioner could
have staked her claim for being appointed
on compassionate grounds but the facts are
otherwise.

26. It is settled proposition of law
that compassionate appointment is to be
made in accordance with the rules. Once
the rules themselves do not contemplate the
situation as has arisen in the instant case
and obviously there cannot be a situation
where a person claiming himself to be a
dependant on the basis of subsequent
events stakes his claim for being appointed
on compassionate grounds and thus clearly,
such a claim would not be covered under
the aforesaid regulations.

27. Mere fact that the order for
compassionate appointment in favour of the
petitioner had been issued, which has now
been withdrawn by means of the order
impugned would not take away the
inadmissibility of the petitioner for being
appointed
on
compassionate
grounds
keeping in view the discussion made above.

28. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1038
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ - A No. 12336 of 2025

Pankaj Mathur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arpit Agarwal, Rahul Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shashi Kant Srivastava

Issues for consideration
 Whether an employer is justified in cancelling
an appointment, obtained on the basis of
misrepresentation, without holding a detailed
departmental inquiry?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921: Clause 17(1)(2),
Clause
19(9)
-
It
is
a
settled
proposition
of
law
that
any
appointment secured on the basis of
fraud,
concealment
or
misrepresentation does not confer any
legal right upon the incumbent. Fraud
vitiates every solemn act. Honesty and
integrity are the basic requirements for
public employment, and suppression of
material
information
or
misrepresentation would render the
appointment invalid. (Para 26, 29)

The petitioner, having obtained appointment by
misrepresentation of facts and by playing fraud
upon the authorities, cannot be permitted to
retain
the
fruits
of
such
illegality.
His
appointment, being tainted from the very
inception, is void ab initio and non est in the
eyes of law. (Para 22)
9 All. Pankaj Mathur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1039
B. The principle of natural justice has no
application in such a case where fraud
unravels everything. "Fraud and justice
never dwell together." (Para 32)

When the very foundation of an appointment is
based upon falsehood and concealment, no
equity can be claimed by the incumbent. The
employer is fully justified in cancelling such an
appointment
without
holding
a
detailed
departmental inquiry. When an appointment is
obtained by suppression of facts such as double
passing of examinations, manipulation of date of
birth, or enhancement of marks without
disclosure, such employment is void ab initio.
No vested right accrues to the petitioner, and
the appointing authority is entitled to cancel the
appointment forthwith, without conducting a
detailed departmental inquiry. (Para 23, 24)

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher pursuant to the selection process
conducted by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. It
subsequently came to light that the petitioner
had passed the High School as well as the
Intermediate Examinations on two occasions.
While applying for public employment, the
petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of
having appeared twice in the said examinations.
Not only this, the petitioner secured benefit of
the altered DOB and enhanced marks obtained
in
the
subsequent
examination,
without
disclosing the same to the appointing authority.
Upon discovery of the concealment, the
respondents cancelled the appointment of the
petitioner treating it to be void ab initio. (Para
25)

C. Once an appointment is shown to be
procured by concealment of fact, the
action of the authority is not a termination
of
service
(which
presupposes
valid
service) but a declaration that no valid
appointment ever existed. The petitioner's
plea that a regular departmental inquiry should
have preceded cancellation is unsustainable.
The procedural protections under service rules
for valid incumbents cannot be invoked to
validate
an
appointment
fundamentally
corrupted by fraud. (Para 35)

D. It is a settled proposition of law that
protection
u/Article
311
of
the
Constitution of India is available only to a
person who has been validly and legally
appointed to a civil post under the Union
or a State. The constitutional safeguard
presupposes a lawful entry into service. When
an
incumbent
secures
appointment
by
suppression of material facts, misrepresentation
or by producing forged or fabricated certificates,
such an appointment is void ab initio and
confers no right to hold the post. (Para 36, 37)

In the present case, the petitioner, by abusing
the process of law by concealing material fact,
has sought to usurp public employment which is
meant to be offered
only to deserving
candidates. This Court cannot extend its
discretionary jurisdiction to protect such a
tainted appointment. (Para 38)

E. In absence of a specific statutory
provision
to
the
contrary,
the
first
certificate shall prevail for all legal,
service and official purposes, and the
second attempt may only supplement but
cannot supplant the original. (Para 39, 41)

Where a candidate has passed the High School
Examination twice, the certificate which is to be
taken into consideration shall ordinarily be the
first validly obtained certificate, as the same
constitutes the original and authentic record of
educational qualification as well as the DOB.
The subsequent certificate, obtained upon reappearing in the examination, may at best be
treated as an improvement certificate for
academic purposes, provided the concerned
Board of Examination has duly recognized and
endorsed it. However, for the purposes of public
employment, service matters, or determination
of age, the authorities are not bound to act
upon the later certificate, especially if the same
has been procured to alter the marks or
manipulate the date of birth. (Para 40)

F. The appointment letter itself contains a
categorical stipulation that in the event,
during
scrutiny
of
the
educational
certificates, any fraud is detected or any
concealment is established on the part of
the petitioner, his appointment shall stand
automatically cancelled without requiring
any further act on the part of the
authorities. Thus, the very foundation of the
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner's appointment was conditional and
subject
to
verification,
and
once
the
concealment and misrepresentation came to
light, the cancellation of his appointment was
the inevitable consequence flowing from the
terms of his engagement. (Para 43)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

1. Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. &
Others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 521 (Para 9)

2. Laxmi Shanker Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 4
Others, Writ-A No.5394 of 2021, as decided by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
14.9.2021 (Para 9)

3. Dharmraj Vs. The Educational Officer
Puddukkottai & Others, (2022) 11 SCC 629
(Para 9)

4. Rao Mohammad Arif Vs. State of U.P. and 4
Others, Judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal No.124 of 2023
(Para 9)

5. Laxmi Shakya Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others,
Writ- A No. 1111 of 2023, as decided on
10.4.2023 (Para 10)

6. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1 (Para 21)

7. A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat
Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669 (Para 21)

8. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P.
And 2 Others, Writ-A No.20140 of 2023, as
decided on 25.08.2025 (Para 21)

9. Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp
(4) SCC 100 (Para 26)

10. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram
Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 (Para 26)

11. Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC
471 (Para 26)

12. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Prohlad Guha Etc.,
2024 SCC Online SC 1865 (Para 28)
13. Vishnu Vardhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
And Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1501 (Para 28)

14. District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram
Social
Welfare
Residential
School
Society
Vizianagaram And Another Vs. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 (Para 30)

15. Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran, (1995)
Supp (4) SCC 100 (Para 30)

16. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram
Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 (Para 30)

17. R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala And
Others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 (Para 30)

18. Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. And
4 Others, Writ-A No.11846 of 2025, as decided
on 19.8.2025 (Para 32)

List of Acts
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

List of Keywords
Service,
appointment,
cancelled,
misrepresentation, fraud, concealment.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Arpit Agarwal, Rahul Saxena
For
Respondent:
C.S.C.,
Shashi
Kant
Srivastava

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. as well
as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2.The present petition has been filed
with the prayer to quash the impugned
order dated 4.4.2025 passed by the District
Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit vide
which the appointment of the petitioner as
Assistant Teacher stands cancelled.

3.Placing the facts of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
9 All. Pankaj Mathur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1041
that the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Teacher, in accordance with law,
pursuant to the selections as made in the
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination,
2020.
Accordingly,
appointment letter dated 5.12.2020 was
issued to the petitioner and he joined at
Primary School Pagawan, Development
Area
Bilsanda,
District-
Pilibhit
on
29.1.2021 on the post of Assistant Teacher.
Since then, the petitioner has been
discharging his duties with utmost honesty
and integrity, there being no complaint
whatsoever against him.

4.The petitioner had qualified for
the post of Assistant Teacher and relevant
educational documents were supplied by
the petitioner to the respondent authorities,
after verification of which, appointment
was given to the petitioner. The petitioner
has placed the said documents as Annexure
No.3 to the present petition which were
placed before the respondent authorities for
verification
of
the
same.
The
said
documents include :-

 (a) High School mark-sheet,
issued by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh
having Serial No.33022904, wherein High
School is shown to be passed in the year
2010 with Roll No.1141730 and the date of
birth is shown as 15.5.1995.

 (b)
High
School
passing
certificate bearing Serial No.1249699.

 (c) Intermediate certificate-cummark-sheet, issued by the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, Uttar
Pradesh having Certificate No.209023,
wherein Intermediate is shown to be passed
in the year 2012 with Roll No.2164760.

 (d)
Bachelor
of
Arts
from
Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University,
Kanpur, a three years course certificate
examination, passed in the year 2016 with
second
division
having
Enrollment
No.CSJMA13000125472.

 (e) Bachelor of Arts Degree
issued by Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur with Roll No.6121617.

 (f) B.T.C. Two Years Course
Examination 2017 (Batch 2015) First
Semester,
issued
by
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad with Roll No.151080267.

 (g) B.T.C. Two Years Course
Examination 2017 (Batch 2015) Second
Semester,
issued
by
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad with Roll No.161080312.

 (h) B.T.C. Two Years Course
Examination 2018 (Batch 2015) Third
Semester,
issued
by
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad with Roll No.172080034.

 (i) B.T.C. Two Years Course
Examination 2018 (Batch 2015) Fourth
Semester,
issued
by
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad with Roll No.181080333.

 (j) Basic Teacher Certificate Two
Year Course Batch 2015 (Examination
Year
2018)
issued
by
Examination
Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh with
Roll No.181080333.

 (k)
Uttar
Pradesh
Teacher
Eligibility Test-2018 certificate (Primary
Level)
as
issued
by
Examination
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulatory Authority, U.P. 23 Allenganj,
Prayagraj with Roll No.1110905733.

 (l)
The
result
of
Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019,
shown
as
qualified
with
Roll
no.08113618600.

 (m) Domicile Certificate issued
by Government of Uttar Pradesh having
Certificate No.212192001280.

 (n) Caste Certificate issued by
Government of Uttar Pradesh having
Certificate No.212194000305.

 (o) Character Certificate.

 (p) Fitness Certificate.

5.It appears that some complaint
was made by one Vinay Kumar on
10.1.2024 with the allegation that the
petitioner had appeared twice in High
School
and
Intermediate
examination,
therefore, an inquiry was conducted relying
upon which, the impugned order has been
passed without giving any notice or
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
therefore, the order impugned is arbitrary,
illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order impugned has been
passed without providing any opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it is
illegal and against the principles of
natural justice. Relying upon a complaint,
without following the proper procedure
as prescribed under law, the order
impugned cancelling the appointment of
the petitioner has been passed which is
against the settled principles of law as
held by the Apex Court and Hon'ble
Court in catena of judgments.
7.Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that at no point of time, the
certificate of High School and Intermediate
have been annulled by the Board or any
competent authority thus, relying upon the
allegations as made in the complaint that
the petitioner has passed High School and
Intermediate twice, passing the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8.Learned counsel for the petitioner
in support of his submission has relied
upon a judgement passed by Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
Defective No. - 9 of 2024 (Basic Shiksha
Adhikari vs. Laxmi Shakya And 3 Others)
as decided on 24.05.2024, wherein the
Court was of the view that where the
petitioner has undergone through any
examination twice and none of them have
been declared a nullity by the competent
Examination Board, rather the certificates
which were used by the petitioner therein
were found to be genuine on verification by
the concerned Examination Body, unless
the same is declared null & void by the
competent Examination Authority, the
services of the petitioner cannot be
terminated on the aforesaid ground.

9.The aforesaid order in the special
appeal was passed relying upon the case of
Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P.
& Others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 521,
Laxmi Shanker Yadav vs. State of U.P.
And 4 Others (Writ-A No.5394 of 2021)
as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 14.9.2021, A. Dharmraj vs. The
Educational Officer Puddukkottai &
Others reported in (2022) 11 SCC 629 as
well as judgment passed by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
No.124 of 2023 (Rao Mohammad Arif vs.
State of U.P. and 4 Others). Relying upon
Clause 17(1) (2) as well as Clause 19 (9) of
9 All. Pankaj Mathur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1043
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which
came into force with effect from 28.7.2021,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the aforesaid provides for prohibition
from appearing in the high school and
intermediate examination from different
schools, twice in the same year, cannot be
applied retrospectively.

10.Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner contends that the impugned order
of cancellation is arbitrary and is in
violation of principles of natural justice. It
is urged that once the appointment was
made, it could not have been cancelled
without holding a regular departmental
inquiry. In support of his submission, he
has relied upon a judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ- A No.
- 1111 of 2023 (Laxmi Shakya vs. State Of
U.P. And 3 Others) as decided on
10.4.2023, in which it has been specifically
held that there is no bar to obtain
overlapping or parallel certificates of high
school and intermediate and there is no
regulatory
framework
prohibiting
two
simultaneous
degrees.
The
aforesaid
clauses in the relevant Act also do not
prohibit two certificates for the same
course.

11.
Learned
counsel
for
respondent-B.S.A., however, submits that
the petitioner has sought appointment as
Assistant Teacher using the high school
mark-sheet of the year 2010 having Roll
No.1141730 and intermediate mark-sheet
of the year 2012 having Roll No.2164760,
which shows changed date of birth and
increased marks. Thus, the petitioner has
concealed the fact about passing out the
high school and intermediate examination
twice and has mislead the authorities while
concealing the aforesaid fact and seeking
appointment
as
Assistant
Teacher,
therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity
in the order impugned.

12. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel submits that the petitioner had
played fraud upon the authorities by
concealing material facts and securing
appointment on false premises. It is argued
that
an
appointment
obtained
by
concealment of fact or misrepresentation is
a nullity in the eyes of law, and no vested
right flows from such an illegal entry into
service.

13. Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record.

14. From the records, it is evident
that on a complaint as made against the
petitioner, regarding petitioner's passing
high school and intermediate examination
twice, showing lesser age and obtaining
appointment, an inquiry was conducted on
19.1.2024 by Block Education Officer,
Bilsanda, directing him to scrutinize the
educational certificates as placed by the
petitioner and place a report accordingly
but he did not provide the same.

15.Several dates were fixed calling the
petitioner, the concerned Block Education
Officer and the complainant, to find out the
reality as made in the complaint. On 22nd May
2024, the petitioner provided the relevant
educational documents i.e. the online marksheets of high school examination of the years
2009 & 2010, the mark-sheet of intermediate
examination of the years 2011 & 2012, B.T.C.
Training 2015, Registration Certificate of
B.T.C. Training 2015 and an affidavit in the
office of respondent no.3, namely, District
Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit.

16.The complainant Vinay Kumar
had also filed an affidavit, mentioning
1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therein that the petitioner had passed high
school and intermediate twice i.e. high
school in the year 2009 as well as 2010 and
intermediate in the year 2011 as well as
2012. In the high school mark sheet of the
year 2009, the date of birth of the petitioner
was shown as 15.5.1994 and that in the
year 2010, it was shown as 15.5.1995.
Thus, in order to ascertain the truth, on
25.5.2024, notice was given to the
petitioner to place his explanation in this
regard.
The
petitioner,
accordingly,
submitted a representation on 10.6.2024,
mentioning therein that a false complaint
has been made by Vinay Kumar who has
also not appeared before the authorities
concerned during the hearings, despite
several notices and opportunities being
given to him. The photograph and Aadhaar
card of the complainant has also not been
annexed in the affidavit as given by the him
and a false complaint has been made for the
purposes of mental harassment of the
petitioner.

17. By letter dated 18.6.2024, the
District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit
fixed the dated for hearing on 25.6.2024 at
11:00AM, wherein the complainant was
also required to be present. The aforesaid
notice was sent at the complainant's address
as mentioned in the affidavit but the
address as mentioned could not be found
and the phone number was also incorrect,
therefore, the notice returned from the post
office. By letter dated 5.7.2024, again the
dated fixed for hearing was 12.7.2024 at
11:00AM. The aforesaid notice also could
not be served to the complainant. In order
to know the correctness of the allegations
as mentioned in the complaint, a two
member committee, comprising of the
Block Education Officer, Bisalpur and
Block Education Officer, Barkhera was
constituted. The aforesaid committee did
not submit any report, therefore, on
8.11.2024 again a direction was issued to
the aforesaid committee to submit a report.
In the inquiry report as submitted on
9.11.2024, it was found that the petitioner
changing his date of birth has passed high
school and intermediate twice. The high
school mark-sheet of the year 2010 and the
intermediate mark-sheet of the year 2012
has been placed before the authorities to
obtain appointment as Assistant Teacher
without disclosing the fact about high
school and intermediate being passed in the
year 2009 and 2011 also. Thus, prima facie
finding that the allegations as made by the
complainant were correct, notice dated
20.11.2024 was sent to the petitioner,
requiring
him
to
submit
his
reply/explanation. The petitioner did not
appear
before
respondent
no.3
on
27.11.2024 at 3 O'clock as directed,
therefore, another opportunity by means of
notice dated 12.12.2024, was provided to
him to appear on 16.12.2024 at 11:00AM.
On 12.12.2024, complainant, namely, Mr.
Bhaiyalal S/o Mr. Kanhaiya Lal was
present who submitted his photograph
pasted affidavit along with Aadhaar card,
mentioning about the same allegations as
made in the earlier complaint.

18.The petitioner appeared before
the respondent no.3 on 16.12.2024 and
placed his written explanation accepting
that he has passed high school and
intermediate twice. He has further admitted
in his explanation that as he was not aware
about the fact that he has to disclose this
fact
of
passing
high
school
and
intermediate twice before the appointing
authority, therefore, due to ignorance, he
could not mention about the aforesaid fact
and has tendered apology for the same. He
has submitted in his explanation that he has
sought appointment on the post of Assistant
9 All. Pankaj Mathur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1045
Teacher by placing one mark-sheet only.
The authorities concerned after perusing
the complaint as made by Vinay Kumar S/o
Ishwar Prasad and Bhaiyalal S/o Kanhaiya
Lal as well as the report submitted by the
Two Member Committee and explanation
as submitted by the petitioner-Pankaj
Mathur, found that the petitioner has passed
high school and intermediate twice, thus,
found that the allegations as made in the
complaint were correct.

19. The District Level Committee
found it necessary to get an inquiry of the
mark-sheets of the petitioner conducted by
the Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha
Board, Prayagraj, therefore, on 7.1.2025,
the Secretary was directed to inquire about
the petitioner's high school mark-sheets of
the years 2009 & 2010 and intermediate
mark-sheets of the years 2011 & 2012 and
ascertain as to which mark-sheet is
genuine. Accordingly, the Secretary, U.P.
Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Prayagraj vide
letter dated 10.3.2025 as modified on
17.3.2025, has provided the following
information :-

 "मक इण्टरमीमडएट मशक्षा अमधमनयम, 1921 के
अधीन बनायेगयेमवमनयमों के अध्याय - बारह मवमनयम-17 (1)
एवं 17 (2) के अनुसार कोई भी परीक्षाथी मजसनेहाईटकूल या
इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा अथवा उसके समकक्ष परीक्षा उत्तीणटकर ली ह, ेै
 बाद की हाईटकूल या इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा मेंकन्प्यूटर मविय को
छोडकर हाईटकूल मेंपााँच तथा इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा मेंचार मवियों
मेंही प्रमवष् हो सकता ह।ेै उि मवमनयमों केअनुसार परीक्षाथी श्री
पंकज माथुर द्वारा दुबारा जन्म मतमथ बदल कर दुबारा सम्पूणटके साथ
अलग-अलग जनपदों से उत्तीणटकी गयी हाईटकूल परीक्षा विट2010 अनु0 1141730 एवं इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा विट- 2012
अनु0 2164760 का परीक्षाफल बैध नही हैं"
20.The Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik
Shiksha Board, Prayagraj further concluded
that from the aforesaid it is clear that the
petitioner has passed high school and
intermediate examination twice in different
years, from different institutions, changing
the date of birth as mentioned earlier. Thus,
the petitioner has obtained appointment by
showing the changed date of birth and for
the sake of taking undue advantage,
deliberately not disclosed about passing
high school and intermediate examination
twice, thus, misleading the authorities
while seeking appointment as Assistant
Teacher pursuant to the advertisement for
selection of 69000 Assistant Teachers.
Thus, relying upon the aforesaid inquiry,
after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, the order impugned has been
passed.

21.The present case reveals that the
petitioner,
while
seeking
public
employment, deliberately suppressed the
material fact of having passed the High
School and Intermediate examinations
twice.
He
further
manipulated
his
candidature by utilizing the altered date of
birth and enhanced marks obtained in the
subsequent examination, without disclosing
the same to the appointing authority and
has succeeded in securing appointment to
the post of Assistant Teacher. Such conduct
is not only fraudulent but also amounts to a
calculated deception played upon the
appointing authority. It is trite law that
fraud vitiates every solemn act and no
person can be permitted to reap the fruits of
an employment obtained by suppression,
misrepresentation
or
falsification
of
documents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,
reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, has
categorically held that a person who
approaches the Court with unclean hands
and suppresses material facts is not entitled
to any relief. Similarly, in A.P. Public
Service
Commission
v.
B.
Sarat
Chandra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669, it
was observed that when an appointment is
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
obtained by concealment of fact or
misrepresentation, the same is void ab
initio and liable to be cancelled forthwith.
This Court in the case of Writ-A No.20140
of 2023 (Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs.
State of U.P. And 2 Others) as decided on
25.08.2025 has held that in case the
employment has been obtained based on
fraudulent
documents
on
concealing
material facts, the beneficiary of such fraud
cannot seek any inquiry in terms of Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules 1999.

22.It is a settled proposition of law
that any appointment secured on the basis
of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation
does not confer any legal right upon the
incumbent. Fraud vitiates every solemn act.
The
petitioner,
having
obtained
appointment by misrepresentation of facts
and by playing fraud upon the authorities,
cannot be permitted to retain the fruits of
such illegality. His appointment, being
tainted from the very inception, is void ab
initio and non est in the eyes of law.

23.Even otherwise, when the very
foundation of an appointment is based upon
falsehood and concealment, no equity can
be claimed by the incumbent. The principle
of natural justice has no application in such
a case where fraud unravels everything.
The employer is fully justified in cancelling
such an appointment without holding a
detailed departmental inquiry.

24.When
an
appointment
is
obtained by suppression of facts such as
double
passing
of
examinations,
manipulation
of
date
of
birth,
or
enhancement of marks without disclosure,
such employment is void ab initio. No
vested right accrues to the petitioner, and
the appointing authority is entitled to
cancel the appointment forthwith, without
conducting a detailed departmental inquiry.

25.The petitioner was appointed as
an Assistant Teacher pursuant to the
selection process conducted by the Basic
Shiksha Parishad. It subsequently came to
light that the petitioner had passed the High
School as well as the Intermediate
Examinations on two occasions. While
applying for public employment, the
petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact
of having appeared twice in the said
examinations. Not only this, the petitioner
secured benefit of the altered date of birth
and enhanced marks obtained in the
subsequent examination, without disclosing
the same to the appointing authority. Upon
discovery
of
the
concealment,
the
respondents cancelled the appointment of
the petitioner treating it to be void ab initio.

26.It is a settled proposition of law
that fraud vitiates every solemn act.
Suppression of material facts, particularly
in the matter of public employment,
amounts to fraud upon the employer. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. M. Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Supp
(4) SCC 100, categorically held that an
appointment obtained on the basis of
forged or fabricated documents is void ab
initio and no departmental inquiry is
required
before
cancelling
such
appointment.
Similarly,
in
Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan
Yadav reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437, the
Apex Court ruled that suppression of
material
facts
or
furnishing
false
information disentitles a candidate from
continuing in service. Again, in Avtar
Singh v. Union of India reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 471, it has been reiterated
that honesty and integrity are the basic
requirements for public employment, and
9 All. Pankaj Mathur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1047
suppression of material information or
misrepresentation
would
render
the
appointment invalid.

27.Applying
the
aforesaid
principles to the facts of the present case, it
is manifest that the petitioner deliberately
concealed that he had passed the High
School and Intermediate twice and had
availed benefit of altered date of birth and
enhanced marks. Such conduct is nothing
short of fraud. Once the very foundation of
the appointment is based on falsehood, the
appointment is non est in the eyes of law.
The plea of violation of natural justice also
does not merit acceptance. When an
appointment is secured by playing fraud, no
equity can be claimed by the wrongdoer.
Fraud unravels everything.

28.In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussion, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the appointment of the
petitioner was void ab initio. The action of
the respondents in cancelling the same does
not suffer from any legal infirmity. In the
case of Union of India & Ors. v. Prohlad
Guha Etc. reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 1865, the Apex Court held that
appointments secured on compassionate
grounds through fraudulent documents are
liable to be set aside. Similarly, in the case
of Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh And Others reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 1501, the Apex Court
reaffirmed that any judgment, order or
appointment obtained by suppression of
material facts or fraud cannot be sustained
and is void ab initio. These decisions
reaffirm the settled legal maxim that fraud
vitiates everything.

29.The law is now well established
that fraud vitiates every solemn act. An
appointment
procured
by
misrepresentation, forgery, or suppression
of material facts is a nullity, conferring no
lawful right on the appointee. Procedural
safeguards reserved for validly appointed
employees do not extend to protect
appointments fundamentally tainted by
fraud/concealment.

30.In the case of District Collector
&
Chairman,
Vizianagaram
Social
Welfare
Residential
School
Society
Vizianagaram And Another vs. M.
Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990)
3 SCC 655, the Hon?ble Supreme Court
has held that an appointment founded on
false information is void. Similarly in the
case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran
reported in (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100, the
Apex Court has held that no regular
disciplinary inquiry is necessary where
entry into service itself is obtained by false
documents. The Apex Court in the cases of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram
Ratan Yadav reported in (2003) 3 SCC
437 as well as R. Vishwanatha Pillai v.
State of Kerala And Others reported in
(2004) 2 SCC 105, also affirm the doctrine
that
affiliation
by
fraud/concealment
renders the appointment as void ab initio.

31.It is settled position of law that
the annulled selections and appointments
that were procured through large-scale
manipulation, holding that no vestigial
right can be derived from fraudulent
appointment. The Court emphasized that
the employer is empowered indeed obliged
to cancel such appointments forthwith.

32.In another judgment passed in
Writ-A No.11846 of 2025 (Virendra
Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. And 4
Others) as decided on 19.8.2025, this
Court has held that fraudulently obtained
order of appointment or approval can be
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

33.Similarly, in the case of Vishnu
Vardhan (supra), the Hon?ble Supreme
Court reiterated that fraud invalidates
judicial and administrative actions alike,
and that no procedural regularity can
salvage an act obtained by fraud.

34.In
the
present
case,
the
verification report clearly establishes that
the petitioner had not disclosed about
passing high school and intermediate twice
and also could not explain his conduct for
the same

35.The petitioner's plea that a
regular departmental inquiry should have
preceded cancellation is unsustainable. Once
an appointment is shown to be procured by
concealment of fact, the action of the
authority is not a termination of service
(which presupposes valid service) but a
declaration that no valid appointment ever
existed. The procedural protections under
service rules for valid incumbents cannot be
invoked
to
validate
an
appointment
fundamentally corrupted by fraud.

36.It is a settled proposition of law
that protection under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India is available only to a
person who has been validly and legally
appointed to a civil post under the Union or
a State. The constitutional safeguard
presupposes a lawful entry into service.
When an incumbent secures appointment
by
suppression
of
material
facts,
misrepresentation or by producing forged
or
fabricated
certificates,
such
an
appointment is void ab initio and confers
no right to hold the post.

37.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) as well as
M.
Bhaskaran
(supra),
and
other
pronouncements has consistently held that
fraud vitiates everything and that an
appointment obtained by fraudulent means
is non est in the eyes of law. In such
circumstances,
the
individual
never
acquires the status of a government servant,
and therefore cannot invoke the protection
of Article 311 of Constitution of India.
Termination of service in these cases is not
a penalty attracting the requirement of a
regular departmental inquiry but merely a
declaration of the illegality of the very
appointment itself. The plea that Article
311
mandates
an
inquiry
before
cancellation of such an appointment is
wholly misconceived. Accordingly, it is
held that where an appointment is obtained
on the basis of fake or forged certificates,
the employer is competent to cancel the
same without holding any inquiry under
Article 311 of the Constitution, as such an
incumbent cannot claim any constitutional
protection of tenure.

38. In the present case, the
petitioner, by abusing the process of law by
concealing material fact, has sought to
usurp public employment which is meant to
be offered only to deserving candidates.
This Court cannot extend its discretionary
9 All. Mohd. Jahid Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
1049
jurisdiction to protect such a
tainted appointment. The action of the
authorities in cancelling the appointment of
the petitioner, being in conformity with the
settled principles of law, calls for no
interference.

39. This Court is of the considered
view that where a candidate has passed the
High School Examination twice, the
certificate which is to be taken into
consideration shall ordinarily be the first
validly obtained certificate, as the same
constitutes the original and authentic record
of educational qualification as well as the
date of birth.

40.The
subsequent
certificate,
obtained
upon
re-appearing
in
the
examination, may at best be treated as an
improvement
certificate
for
academic
purposes, provided the concerned Board of
Examination has duly recognized and
endorsed it. However, for the purposes of
public employment, service matters, or
determination of age, the authorities are not
bound to act upon the later certificate,
especially if the same has been procured to
alter the marks or manipulate the date of
birth.

41.It is thus held that in absence of a
specific statutory provision to the contrary,
the first certificate shall prevail for all legal,
service and official purposes, and the second
attempt may only supplement but cannot
supplant the original.

42.The judgment as cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner is not
applicable in the present facts of the case as
it speaks about no bar in obtaining two
parallel certificates of high school and
intermediate whereas in the present case,
the petitioner has passed high school and
intermediate twice and has taken benefit of
date of birth and enhanced marks placing
the second mark-sheet of the high school
and intermediate.

43.Even otherwise, this Court finds
that the appointment letter itself contains a
categorical stipulation that in the event,
during
scrutiny
of
the
educational
certificates, any fraud is detected or any
concealment is established on the part of
the petitioner, his appointment shall stand
automatically cancelled without requiring
any further act on the part of the
authorities. Thus, the very foundation of
the
petitioner?s
appointment
was
conditional and subject to verification, and
once
the
concealment
and
misrepresentation
came
to
light,
the
cancellation of his appointment was the
inevitable consequence flowing from the
terms of his engagement.

44.In view of the above, the
present
petition
lacks
merit
and
is
dismissed, accordingly.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1049
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ- B No. 840 of 2025

Mohd. Jahid ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ankit Pande, Virendra Bhatt

Counsel for the Respondents: