# Preeti Jaiswal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1266
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11875 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/preeti-jaiswal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54740
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 70,928. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

1266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Relying upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rafat
Naaz and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in MANU/UP/5109/2024, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that once it is proved that the petitioner is the legally wedded
wife, no succession certificate is required for the payment of family pension.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents-BSA could not disputed the aforesaid facts.

15. From the arguments as placed by learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that
the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant. The same is evident
from the succession certificate issued by the concerned District Magistrate, which has not been
disputed.

16. The second marriage, after the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force, is void. The
second wife does not fall within the definition of 'family,' and any nomination in her favour cannot
override the legally wedded wife's right to family pension, as she qualifies as a family member.
Regulation 7 specifies that family pension is only payable to members of the deceased's family.
Sub-clause 4(a)(i) provides that the 'eldest surviving widow' is entitled to the pension, recognizing
the rights of two widows and the procedure for pension distribution. In the absence of a valid
nomination, the eldest widow receives the pension. As the second marriage is void under the Hindu
Marriage Act, the petitioner, as the legally wedded wife, is entitled to the family pension.

17. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner is the legally
wedded wife of late Dileep Kumar Singh, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled for the
family pension. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to immediately release the family pension
and other dues of late Dileep Kumar Singh in favour of the petitioner.

18. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1266
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 11875 of 2025

Preeti Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
4 All. Preeti Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1267
(1) Permissibility of challenging the cancellation of the appointment, obtained by using fraudulent marksheet,
on the ground that no regular disciplinary enquiry was conducted.
(2) Permissibility of challenging the cancellation of the appointment, obtained by using fraudulent marksheet,
on the ground that the impugned action is being vitiated on account of delay of 25 years.
(3) Permissibility of challenging the cancellation of the appointment, obtained by using fraudulent marksheet,
on the ground that the marksheet was not annulled by the University.
(4) Scope of Writ jurisdiction to interfere in the finding of facts.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Cancellation of appointment - Assistant Teacher - Marksheet of BA IIIrd year
was found doubtful as marks entered in it is slight more than the tabulation chart - Appointment
was annulled with retrospective effect with a direction of recovery and initiating criminal
proceeding - Validity challenged - Plea of not conducting regular disciplinary enquiry was taken
- Grounds of impugned action being vitiated on account of delay of 25 years was also taken -
Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: The present case does not pertain to an instance of misconduct committed during the course of
service; rather, it strikes at the very root of the petitioner's entry into service, which is alleged to have been
secured on the basis of a tainted and fraudulent document. It is trite law that where the initial appointment
itself is void ab initio, the employer is not obliged to undertake a detailed disciplinary inquiry akin to punitive
proceedings contemplated under the service rules. [Para 82]
Further held: Fraud vitiates all proceedings and that there can be no limitation for the discovery and
correction of a fraud. The moment such fraud comes to light, the competent authority is well within its
jurisdiction to take appropriate corrective measures, irrespective of the lapse of time. [Para 94]
(B) Service law - Cancellation of appointment - Assistant Teacher - Allegation of using
Marksheet of BA IIIrd year procured by playing fraud was leveled - Appointment was annulled -
Validity challenged - Plea of lack of formal cancellation of the degree by the University was
raised - Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: An employer is not only entitled, but is under a legal obligation, to satisfy itself as to whether a
candidate fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions at the time of entry into service. Where the material on
record demonstrably indicates that the marksheet relied upon by the candidate is manipulated, inconsistent,
or otherwise unreliable, the employer cannot be compelled to await a formal annulment of the degree by the
University authorities. The satisfaction of the employer, arrived at on the basis of a duly conducted inquiry
and founded upon cogent material, with regard to fraud or misrepresentation, is sufficient to invalidate the
appointment. [Para 87]
(C) Practice and procedure - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Finding of facts - Scope
of interference: (E-1)
Held: This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate forum to reappreciate or
reassess findings of fact, unless such findings are demonstrated to be perverse, arbitrary, or wholly
unsupported by the record. [Para 91]
(D) Service law - Cancellation of appointment - Assistant Teacher - Marksheet of BA IIIrd year
was found forged - After enquiry, the appointment was annulled with retrospective effect -
Validity challenged - Plea of length of continuous service of 15 years was taken - Permissibility:
(E-1)
Held: The petitioner cannot claim any vested or indefeasible right on the basis of long continuance in service,
when the very foundation of such continuance stands vitiated - Equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate an
illegality, nor can a person be permitted to derive benefit from a fraudulent act. Once fraud is detected, the
authorities are not only empowered but duty-bound to initiate inquiry and take consequential action,
irrespective of the lapse of time. [Para 96 and 127]

Case Law Cited
Writ A No. 10029 of 2025, Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:186564; Writ A No. 11846 of
2025, Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others; Writ A No. 12839 of 2023, Shiv Kumar vs. State of
U.P. and 8 Others; Writ A No. 12336 of 2025, Pankaj Mathur vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others; Writ A No. 10843
1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 2025, Deepa Magleena vs. State of U.P. and 4 others; Writ A No. 2014 of 2023, Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari
vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others; Writ A No. 19634 of 2025, Garima Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others;
Poonam Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (1) ADJ 225; Special Appeal No.26 of 2007, Vinay Kumar
Shahi vs. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University and Others; State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh
and others, (1983) 3 SCC 118; LIC of India and another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491;
Mansaram vs. S.P. Pathak and others, 1984 (1) SCC 125; Radhe Shyam Yadav & Another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others, (2024) 11 SCC 770; Riyazul Hasan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2025:AHC:223273;
A.P. State Financial Corporation vs. M/S GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, (1994) 2 SCC 647; S. P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1; R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others,
(2004) 2 SCC 105; Bank of India and another vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690;
Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670 -
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226; State Universities Act, 1973; Right to Information Act, 2005; U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7; U.P. Basic Education Staff Service Rules,
1973.

List of Keywords
Selection proceeding, Special B.T.C., Appointment, Charge sheet, Inquiry proceeding, Suspension, Verification
of Degree, Enquiry Committee, Dispute, Conformity, Decision, Hearing, Notice, Reply, Verification report,
Erroneous, Computation of salary, Recovery of salary, Departmental proceeding, Infirmity, Tabulation chart,
Justification, Counter foil, Cancellation, Correctness of marks, Doubt, Adjournment, Genuine, Interpolation in
the marks, Manipulated marks, Cogent material, Lawful inquiry, Illegality, Fraud, Solemn act, Foundation of
appointment, Fabricated documents, Opportunity of hearing, Principle of natural justice, Substratum,
Consequential direction, Criminal proceeding, Credentials, Inflation of marks, Explanation, Jurisdiction,
Unexplained delay, Determination, Misconceived, Legally untenable, Trite law, Void ab initio, Punitive
proceeding, Insignificant, Satisfaction, Devoid of merit, Manifest oversimplification, Evidentiary frameworks,
Settled proposition of law, Discrepancies, Finding of facts, Reappreciate, Reassess, Principle of equity, Degree
of falsification, Hierarchical evidentiary value, Probative value, Derivative record, Presumption, Inconsistency,
Deliberation, Arbitrary, Discovery of fraud, Sanctity of public record, Abuse of process, Equitable relief, Nongenuine documents, Procedural safeguards, Arbitrariness, Perversity.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Siddharth Khare.
Advs. for the Respondents: Chandan Sharma, Shailendra Singh, Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi.

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

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 and
perused the record.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
4 All. Preeti Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1269
 "(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
28.07.2025 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur.

 (ii) A writ, order or direction of suitable nature restraining the respondents from
interfering with the working of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher at Prathmik Vidyalay Jangal
Dumri No.1, Development Block Bhathat, District Gorakhpur and to pay the petitioner her full
monthly salary of the said post regularly every month.

 (iii) Any other relief as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances
of the case."

3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
educational qualification of the petitioner is High School, Intermediate, Bachelor of Arts Degree,
Bachelor of Education and Special BTC Training Course, 2008. In the year 2008 selection
proceedings were undertaken by the State Government for admission to Special BTC Training
Course 2008 to such candidates who possessed some other teacher's training qualification.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner also applied in pursuance thereof, and was selected and
underwent training at District Institute of Education & Training, Gorakhpur. On successful
completion of Special BTC Training Course 2008, the petitioner was issued a certificate dated
21.12.2009. Upon declaration of the result of Special BTC Training Course, the petitioner became
entitled for automatic appointment as an Assistant Teacher, accordingly, based upon the result of
Special BTC Training Course, 2008, the petitioner was issued appointment order dated 06.02.2010.

5. The petitioner forthwith joined and thereafter has been working continuously up to the
satisfaction of her superiors. The work and conduct of the petitioner has been fully satisfactory. The
petitioner was at the relevant point of time was posted at Prathmik Vidyalaya Jangal Dumri No.1,
Development Block Bhathat, District Gorakhpur. The petitioner has been paid her regular monthly
salary up to the month of June 2025.

6. The petitioner passed her Bachelor of Arts Course as a student of St. Andrew's College,
Gorakhpur, affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (in short
Gorakhpur University). The aforesaid degree as awarded to the petitioner was duly verified by
the Examination Controller, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. It was duly verified that the
petitioner had secured 1175 marks out of 1800 marks in aggregate of 3 years Bachelor of Arts
Course.

7. Without there being any material against the petitioner, she was placed under suspension
by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur on 19.12.2019 and a charge sheet dated 26.12.2019 was
issued. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed Writ A No.8607 of 2020 (Preeti Jaiswal vs.
State of U.P. & Others) and vide order dated 15.10.2020 the writ petition was finally disposed of
directing to conclude the inquiry proceedings within a period of 30 days from that date, failing
which the suspension order of the petitioner would stand revoked.
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. The Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Bhathat, sent a communication dated 10.01.2020
addressed to the Principal St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur, seeking verification of Bachelor of
Arts Degree of the petitioner. In response, the Principal of the aforesaid college made an
endorsement to the effect that according to the tabulation sheet made available by the University,
the petitioner secured 1175 marks out of 1800 marks and passed her Bachelor of Arts Examination
in First Division. The endorsement dated 11.01.2020 finds place on the communication of Khand
Shiksha Adhikari, Bhathat.

9. On 18.01.2020, the Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Bhathat, sent a communication to the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, giving an opinion that no discrepancy is reflected. However, it
would be appropriate to seek verification of the Graduation Degree of the petitioner from the
University.

10. The Vice Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, proceeded to appoint an
Enquiry Committee to conduct verification of the mark sheet of the petitioner. The Committee so
constituted was headed by a professor of the University with three other members. The Committee
met on 30.09.2022 and proceeded to submit a report dated 30.09.2022 for consideration and
decision by the Examination Committee of the University. The report as placed by the Committee
dated 30.09.2022 mentions about the verification of the marks of the petitioner based upon the
counter foil made available by the confidential section of the University, however, does not dispute
the marks awarded to the petitioner are in conformity with the tabulation chart maintained by the
University.

11. The Examination Controller of the University based on the aforesaid report dated
30.09.2022 of the Committee constituted by the Gorakhpur University submitted a report dated
18.09.2024 which was followed by a further report dated 21.05.2024. Though, the Committee
while placing the report before the Examination Controller of the University has directed the
Examination Controller to pass appropriate orders and place the same before the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Gorakhpur and Incharge STF, Gorakhpur. Till date, no decision has been taken at the
level of the Examination Committee on the basis of the report dated 30.09.2022.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that degree so awarded by the respondentUniversity can be cancelled or revoked only on the basis of decision of the Executive Council of
the University and this decision can be made only on the basis of limited grounds enumerated
under the State Universities Act, 1973. Neither the Executive Council nor the Examination
Committee has taken any decision on the Bachelor of Arts Degree of the petitioner.

13. In between the Special Task Force, Gorakhpur appears to have submitted some report
dated 01.04.2024. Another report dated 14.02.2025 followed by a further report dated 21.05.2024
was sent by the Examination Controller.

14. On 20.08.2024, a notice was issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, fixing
26.08.2024 as the date of hearing, and the petitioner was required to remain present. In response to
the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed an application dated 26.08.2024 requesting for supply of
documents referred to therein. Thereafter, another notice dated 19.10.2024 was issued by the Basic
4 All. Preeti Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1271
Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, fixing 29.10.2024 as the date of hearing. The aforesaid notice was
accompanied by a copy of the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee of Gorakhpur University
dated 30.09.2022, letters of Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur dated 21.05.2024 and 18.09.2024
and the report of Special Task Force dated 26.07.2024. The petitioner in response of the aforesaid
notice filed a detailed representation dated 29.10.2024. Against the notice dated 19.10.2024,
however, she filed a Writ Petition No.77 of 2025 (Preeti Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others), and
the aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 17.02.2025 directing the petitioner
to submit a reply to the notice dated 19.10.2024 within a period of three weeks from that date
before the concerned respondent who shall inturn take decision in the matter strictly in accordance
with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

15. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a fresh notice dated 01.03.2025 making partial
amendment to the notice dated 19.10.2024 was issued fixing 17.03.2025 as the date of hearing. In
response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed a representation dated 17.03.2025. Another
notice dated 27.05.2025 was issued by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, which was a fourth
notice to the petitioner to which a detailed reply and representation dated 09.06.2025 was submitted
by her.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the Controller of Examination
has verified the mark sheet of the petitioner on 03.02.2014 and has forwarded the verification
report dated 03.02.2014 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur through Khand Shiksha
Adhikari, Bhathat, vide letter dated 05.02.2014.

17. He further submits that on the basis of application filed under Right to Information Act,
2005, the petitioner received the information that by communication dated 22.06.2021 issued by
the Examination Controller it has been informed that Tabulation Register is maintained as a
permanent record, whereas the counter foil/mark slip is retained only for a period of one year. It
was further informed that the verification of the results is undertaken from the Tabulation Register.
Evaluated answer sheets are retained for a period of two years or till holding of the examination
thereafter. It was also informed by communication dated 04.09.2024 by the Principal of St.
Andrews College, Gorakhpur, responded that the marks are entered in the format of the mark sheet
made available from the University on the basis of marks contained in the Tabulation Register. By
communication dated 18.10.2024, the Principal of the College intimated that the Tabulation
Register was maintained by Gorakhpur University and verification of marks was only possible
from the said Tabulation Register.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 14.02.2025 the Examination
Controller proceeded to submit a report to the effect that the earlier verification report dated
01.04.2024 was found to be erroneous and, accordingly, a modified report was placed on
21.05.2024. Thereafter, on 28.07.2025, an order was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Gorakhpur, purporting to cancel the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of her
initial appointment with further directions for lodging the First Information Report against the
petitioner and for computation of salary for effecting a recovery of the salary from the year 2010 as
paid to the petitioner.
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. The aforesaid order dated 28.07.2025, which is the order impugned has been
challenged on the following grounds:-

 (i). That no regular departmental proceedings were initiated prior to passing of the order
impugned.

 (ii). That the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur has not conducted any oral hearing at
his own level or by appointing any inquiry officer in accordance with Rule 7 of U.P. Govt. Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short Rules of 1999).

 (iii). It is settled position of law that prior to imposition of major penalty like termination
of service, a proper inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the procedure as provided under
Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.

 (iv). None of the mark sheet of the petitioner suffer from any infirmity.

 (v). None of the notices have been given to the petitioner making allegations to the effect
that the mark sheet of the petitioner could not be verified by Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur
University, Gorakhpur, because entries in the mark sheet is being compared with some counter foil
claim to be available at St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur, on the basis of which a doubt is cast upon
the petitioner for giving a forged mark sheet. As informed, the mark sheet are to be verified from
the tabulation chart as maintained and there exists no discrepancy in the petitioners mark sheet as
compared with the tabulation sheet. There is no justification in passing any order on the basis of
some counter foil obtained from St. Andrews College. The petitioner has worked for almost 18
years and cancellation of appointment by passing the order impugned after so many years, is
arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written submissions wherein challenging
the order impugned the following grounds have been taken:-

21. The objection which has been taken with respect to Bachelor of Arts Degree obtained
by the petitioner in the year 2000 being student of St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur affiliated to
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. There does not exist any allegation that
the petitioner was not a student of St. Andrew's College, Gorakhpur, however, it has been stated
that the marks entered in the mark sheet of IIIrd year of B.A. Course are inflated. Such objection is
being raised on the basis of comparison of the mark sheet of the petitioner from the counter foil
available with the Gorakhpur University. He submits that despite the fact that the marks entered in
the mark sheet of the petitioner tallies with the marks entered in the tabulation register maintained
by the St. Andrews College as well as by the Gorakhpur University. The aforesaid objection is
arbitrary as the tabulation register of the University and the College are the most authentic
documents and any doubt with regard to the correctness of the marks can be resolved on the basis
of the entries in the tabulation register only. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the Bachelor of Arts Degree/mark-sheet awarded to the petitioner continues to
remain intact, hence, the impugned order could not have been passed unless the aforesaid is
4 All. Preeti Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1273
cancelled or revoked. There also does not exist any justification on the part of Basic Shiksha
Adhikari to pass the order impugned basing upon the mark sheet which is still intact.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appointment of the petitioner
is on the basis of Special BTC Training Certificate 2008, which is also intact, therefore, his
appointment could not be cancelled on non existing grounds. The power of canceling the degree
awarded to the petitioner lies with the Executive Council, however, there is no such decision on the
basis of which the BSA could have proceeded to pass the order impugned. The respondents have
tried to justified the entire action and have passed the order impugned on the basis of inquiry report
of the Inquiry Committee dated 30.09.2022, minutes of the meeting of Examination Committee
dated 21.08.2024, award sheet of BA-III, 2000, report of Examination Controller dated 21.05.2024,
18.09.2024 and 14.02.2025 as well as the report of the Special Task Force dated 26.07.2014. None
of the aforesaid documents so relied upon demonstrate any decision for cancelling the degree/mark
sheet already awarded to the petitioner.

23. The report of the Inquiry Committee (constituted by order dated 14.10.2025) by the
Examination Controller contains a recital that the said report was being forwarded to the
Examination Committee for further action. The extract of the aforesaid is as follows:-

 "तदनुिार जाूँच ििमित क आख्या पर क्षा ििमित को िंदिभत है। पर क्षा ििमित के िनणतयानुिार
ित्यापन आख्या बेििक िशक्षा ििधकार , गोरखपुर और प्रभार STFफ ल्ड इकाई, गोरखपुर को प्रेिषत िकया
जाये।"

24. The Examination Committee in its meeting dated 21.08.2024 has mentioned as under:-

 "16 कु० प्र ित जायिवाल पुत्र रागपित्त गुप्ता ब ० ए ० एवम ब ० एड दोनों के प्रकरण में गिठत जाूँच
ििमित क िंस्तुित िदनांक 30/09/2022को पर क्षा ििमित के िम्मुख प्रस्तुत िकये जाने पर िवधार।

 िनणतय ििमित जाूँच आख्या एवं कृत्य कायतवाह िे िंिूिचत हुई। "

25. From the aforesaid, it is clear that no decision has been taken by the Examination
Committee which also does not have any such powers. The report of the examination controller and
Special Task Force as forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is based on an inquiry report dated
30.09.2022, which itself cannot be taken as decision of the Examination Committee.

26. As per the report of the inquiry committee dated 30.09.2022 and letters of the
Examination Controller and Special Task Force, the basis for doubting correctness of the marks
entered in the mark sheet of the petitioner and the tabulation register of St. Andrew's College and
the tabulation register of Gorakhpur University is the award sheet (counter foil).

27. At no point of time, any inquiry has been conducted with respect to the authenticity of
the tabulation sheet on the basis of which marks of the petitioner has already been verified. The
authorities have casted doubt on the tabulation register of the University itself on the basis of award
sheet (counter foil) which is arbitrary and without justification.
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. The aforesaid objection has been raised after a lapse of 25 years after graduation of the
petitioner and it is beyond imagination to believe as to why even after lapse of 25 years the award
sheet has still not been destroyed. The impugned order is thus based on non existing grounds,
therefore, is illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law.

29. The Bachelor of Arts Degree of the petitioner has been obtained in the year 2000 while
the objection has been raised with respect to the aforesaid mark sheet between 2022 to 2025 years
after a period of more than decades, there does not exist any justification for such belated action.

30. The only allegation which could be accepted is entering slight higher marks than the
marks obtained in the IIIrd Year Bachelor of Arts. Even on the basis of the marks as shown in the
tabulation sheet, the petitioner would continue to remain a pass and valid holder of graduation
degree, therefore, there is no justification in passing the order impugned. A verification report of
Controller of Examination dated 03.02.2014, the communication of the Principal St. Andrews
College, Gorakhpur dated 04.09.2024, 18.10.2024 as well as tabulation chart maintained by St.
Andrews College, Gorakhpur as well as the Gorakhpur University and the report of examination
controller dated 01.04.2024 all go to prove the correctness of the mark sheet of the petitioner.

31. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the reduced marks of the
petitioner are there an issue would arise as to how reduced marks would effect the
selection/appointment of the petitioner, thus, the recovery on the basis of the aforesaid impugned
order dated 28.07.2025, is also bad and not justified in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.

32. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BSA submits that the petitioner came to
be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School pursuant to an appointment letter dated
06.02.2010. It is further contended that, subsequent to such appointment, certain doubts and
suspicions arose with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the B.A. mark-sheet purportedly
issued in favour of the petitioner by St. Andrew's College, Gorakhpur, an institution affiliated with
Gorakhpur University.

33. In view thereof, and in discharge of the statutory obligation to ensure the integrity of
public appointments, the competent authority deemed it appropriate to initiate proceedings for
verification of the said educational credentials, so as to ascertain their authenticity and veracity.

34. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, in order to ascertain the
authenticity of the petitioner's academic credentials, the Vice-Chancellor of Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur, constituted a three-member inquiry committee to examine the
genuineness of the B.A. examination mark-sheets pertaining to the academic sessions 19982000.

35. It is contended that, in the course of the said inquiry, the committee issued multiple
notices to the petitioner, affording her adequate opportunity to appear in person and submit a
written explanation. However, despite due service of notices, the petitioner neither appeared before
the committee nor furnished any reply, thereby choosing not to avail the opportunity so granted.
4 All. Preeti Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1275
36. It is further submitted that, upon completion of the inquiry proceedings, the committee
finalized its report on 30.9.2022 and duly forwarded the same to the District Basic Education
Officer, Gorakhpur, for appropriate action in accordance with law.

37. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, upon receipt of the aforesaid
inquiry report, notices were duly issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, as well
as by the Inspector, STF, calling upon the petitioner to furnish her explanation and to appear for
personal hearing.

38. It is contended that, instead of responding to the said notices, the petitioner preferred
Writ Petition No.77of 2025 before this Hon'ble Court, which came to be disposed of by order dated
17.02.2025. By the said order, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant liberty to the petitioner to
submit her reply to the notice dated 19.10.2024 issued by the District Basic Education Officer,
Gorakhpur, and further directed respondent no.2 to consider and decide the matter strictly in
accordance with law, after duly adverting to the submissions so made by the petitioner.

39. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, in compliance with the order
dated 17.02.2025 passed by this Honble Court, the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur
issued a notice dated 01.03.2025 to the petitioner, calling upon her to submit her reply to the
allegations levelled against her.

40. It is contended that, in response thereto, instead of furnishing a substantive explanation,
the petitioner, vide letter dated 17.03.2025, merely sought supply of certain documents and failed
to address the issues raised in the notice. Thereafter, a further notice dated 27.05.2025 was issued
by respondent no.6, granting yet another opportunity to the petitioner; however, she again sought
adjournment and prayed for additional time to submit her reply.

41. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the subsequent notice dated 14.07.2025 issued
by respondent no.6, the petitioner neither submitted any reply nor availed the opportunity of
hearing extended to her.

42. In these circumstances, and after affording repeated opportunities which the petitioner
failed to avail, the competent authority, being left with no alternative, proceeded to pass the order
dated 28.07.2025, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled in accordance with law.

43. Learned counsel for the respondents, while defending the impugned order, submits that
the same has been passed on the basis of a detailed and duly conducted inquiry, culminating in a
report dated 30.9.2022 submitted by the committee constituted by Gorakhpur University.

44. It is contended that the said inquiry report, which forms the very foundation of the
impugned action, has not been assailed or challenged by the petitioner at any point of time before
any competent forum. Consequently, the findings recorded therein have attained finality and are
binding upon the parties.
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
45. On the strength of the aforesaid report, it is further submitted that the petitioner's mark
sheet has been conclusively found to be not genuine, and therefore, the impugned order does not
suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.

46. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the inquiry has unequivocally
revealed that the tabulation chart of the college pertaining to the examination in question had been
tampered with. It is contended that there exists clear interpolation in the marks, whereby the
petitioners score was unlawfully enhanced from 227 to 336.

47. It is further submitted that the manner and extent of such interpolation stand
conclusively established from the counterfoil maintained by the University, which constitutes
primary and unimpeachable evidence for ascertaining the actual marks obtained by a candidate.
The said primary record, therefore, belies the authenticity of the mark sheet relied upon by the
petitioner.

48. In light of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner had deliberately relied upon a
fabricated and manipulated mark sheet to secure appointment, and consequently, the impugned
order, having been passed on the basis of cogent material and lawful inquiry, does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.

49. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is a well-settled principle of
law that any appointment secured on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation stands vitiated at its
very inception, and such a person is not entitled to any equitable relief, sympathy, or indulgence
from the Court.

50. It is contended that fraud unravels all solemn acts, and once it is established that the
very foundation of appointment is tainted, no leniency can be shown in favour of such an
incumbent. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance has been placed upon the judgments
rendered in Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. and others, (Writ-A No. 10029 of 2025), Virendra
Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ A No.11846 of 2025, Shiv Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and 8 Others in Writ A No.12839 of 2023, Pankaj Mathur vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others in Writ A No.12336 of 2025, Deepa Magleena vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in Writ A
No.10843 of 2025, Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others in Writ A
No.2014 of 2023 wherein it has been categorically held that a candidate who secures appointment
on the strength of forged or fabricated documents cannot claim any protection in law. The similar
issue has also been settled in case of Garima Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others in Writ A
No.19634 of 2025. On that issue Division Bench of this Court has also made observation in case of
Poonam Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (1) ADJ 225 and Vinay Kumar Shahi vs.
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University and Others in Special Appeal No.26 of 2007
that the tabulation chart is a sacred documents and no person can be permitted to make any
interpolation in it.

51. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner, having obtained appointment on the
basis of a manipulated mark sheet, is not entitled to any relief, and the impugned order calls for no
interference by this Hon'ble Court.
4 All. Preeti Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
52. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in cases where an appointment has
been secured by practising fraud, the requirement of affording further opportunity of hearing or
entertaining delayed replies does not arise under the applicable Rules of 1999. It is contended that
once fraud is prima facie established, the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked to
perpetuate an illegality or to confer any advantage upon the wrongdoer.

53. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having failed to avail repeated opportunities
already extended and having been found to have procured appointment on the basis of fraudulent
documents, cannot now insist upon any additional opportunity as a matter of right.

54. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit
and is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.

55. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that, upon scrutiny of
the petitioner's academic records, material discrepancies and variations in the marks obtained by
the petitioner were detected.

56. It is contended that, in order to afford due opportunity, several communications were
issued by the University calling upon the petitioner to appear in person and furnish an appropriate
explanation with respect to the said discrepancies. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a
reply dated 25.06.2021, however, the explanation so tendered was found to be wholly
unsatisfactory and failed to dispel the serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the marks in
question.

57. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that a detailed
counter affidavit has been filed upon due perusal of the original records of the University as well as
the inquiry report. It is contended that, upon scrutiny, it has been conclusively established that the
marks recorded in respect of the petitioner for B.A. Part-I (1998, Roll No. 128685), B.A. Part-II
(1999, Roll No. 109673), and B.A. Part-III (2000, Roll No. 114125) were found to have been
tampered with in the tabulation register maintained at the examination centre, namely St.
Andrews College, Gorakhpur, as well as in certain corresponding University records.

58. It is further submitted that, from a perusal of the original award sheets obtained from
the confidential section of the University, particularly with regard to B.A. Part-III (2000), it
emerges that the petitioner had actually secured 41 marks in the first paper of Psychology, 06
marks in the second paper, 47 marks in the third paper, and 26 marks in the practical examination.
Similarly, in Political Science, the petitioner had secured 42 marks in the first paper, 30 marks in
the second paper, and 35 marks in the third paper.

59.