# Ram Niwas Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 655
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-29
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-niwas-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45875
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Service Law - Appointments - Fake B.Ed.
degrees - State Universities Act, 1973 -
U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973
-
The
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
The petitioners obtained government
employment on the post of assistant
teachers on the basis of their fake B.Ed.
degrees. This is a fraudulent act. This is
a settled law that fraud and justice never
dwell together. The forgery is in the
basic
eligibility
conditions
for
appointments on the post of assistant
teachers inasmuch as B.Ed. Degree are
fake. The process of appointments of the
petitioners who obtained government
employment on the basis of fake B.Ed.
Degrees stand vitiated. The petitioners
have become beneficiaries of illegal and
fraudulent
appointments.
Such
appointments are void ab initio. (Para
69(vii),(viii))

The Division Bench judgment in the case of
Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial College Vs.
State of U.P. and ors. Was tht the University
was to declare result of 85% students
admitted in private unaided professional
colleges and 50% students admitted by such
colleges under Management quota. The SIT
(Special Investigation Team) adjusted all the
excess admitted students in these 25 private
unaided professional colleges, i.e. upto 85%
students by counselling and upto 50%
students
by
management.
Thus,
the
submission of the petitioner that the SIT has
not considered the excess admitted students
whose results were declared in terms of Shri
Puran Prasad Gupta (Supra) is incorrect.(Para
69(i))

The petitioners who obtained appointments
on the post of Assistant Teachers on the
basis of fake B.Ed. Degrees and who fall
under 2,823 fake students declared by the
University, their orders of cancellation of
appointments or dismissal from service on
the ground of obtaining appointments on
the basis of fake B.Ed. 2005 degree cannot
be interfered with by invoking, equitable
and discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioners who have been declared fake
students, their order of cancellation of
appointments or dismissal from service
passed by the concerned District Basic
Education
Officer
are
affirmed.
(Para
69(vi))

The Court held that holding disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
petitioners
envisages by Article 311 of the Constitution
of India or under any disciplinary rules
including Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 shall not rise. (Para
69(viii))

Writ Petition Disposed off. (E-10)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,934 of 133,158. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._

6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 655
individual is thought to be utterly
compelling--it is felt that a fair hearing
"would make no difference"--meaning
that a hearing would not change the
ultimate conclusion reached by the
decision-maker--then no legal duty to
supply a hearing arises. Such an
approach
was
endorsed
by
Lord
Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen
Corpn. [(1971) 1 WLR 1578 : (1971) 2
All ER 1278 (HL)] , who said that: (WLR
p. 1595 : All ER p. 1294)

"... A breach of procedure ... cannot
give [rise to] a remedy in the courts,
unless behind it there is something of
substance which has been lost by the
failure. The court does not act in vain."

Relying on these comments, Brandon
L.J. opined in Cinnamond v. British
Airports Authority [(1980) 1 WLR 582 :
(1980) 2 All ER 368 (CA)] that: (WLR p.
593 : All ER p. 377)

"... no one can complain of not being
given
an
opportunity
to
make
representations if such an opportunity
would have availed him nothing."

In such situations, fair procedures
appear to serve no purpose since the
"right" result can be secured without
according
such
treatment
to
the
individual.

40. In this behalf, we need to notice
one other exception which has been
carved out to the aforesaid principle by
the courts. Even if it is found by the court
that there is a violation of principles of
natural justice, the courts have held that
it may not be necessary to strike down the
action and refer the matter back to the
authorities to take fresh decision after
complying
with
the
procedural
requirement in those cases where nongrant of hearing has not caused any
prejudice to the person against whom the
action is taken. Therefore, every violation
of a facet of natural justice may not lead
to the conclusion that the order passed is
always null and void. The validity of the
order has to be decided on the touchstone
of "prejudice". The ultimate test is always
the same viz. the test of prejudice or the
test of fair hearing."

41. Taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the present
case including the reasoning given by us
on issue no.(i), as noted above, and the
principles of "Useless Formality" theory
as also the observations made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, quoted hereinabove,
we decide the issue no.2 against the
appellant and hold that the judgment and
order dated 27.02.2020 is not liable to be
interfered with on the ground of violation
of principles of natural justice, as alleged
by the learned counsel for the appellant.

42. In view of aforesaid, the Special
Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No. 190 of 2020 alongwith other
connected cases

Ram Niwas Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shantanu Khare, Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
C.S.C.
Avneesh
Tripathi,
Chandan
Agarwal, Sri Vivek Verma
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Service Law - Appointments - Fake B.Ed.
degrees - State Universities Act, 1973 -
U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973
-
The
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
The petitioners obtained government
employment on the post of assistant
teachers on the basis of their fake B.Ed.
degrees. This is a fraudulent act. This is
a settled law that fraud and justice never
dwell together. The forgery is in the
basic
eligibility
conditions
for
appointments on the post of assistant
teachers inasmuch as B.Ed. Degree are
fake. The process of appointments of the
petitioners who obtained government
employment on the basis of fake B.Ed.
Degrees stand vitiated. The petitioners
have become beneficiaries of illegal and
fraudulent
appointments.
Such
appointments are void ab initio. (Para
69(vii),(viii))

The Division Bench judgment in the case of
Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial College Vs.
State of U.P. and ors. Was tht the University
was to declare result of 85% students
admitted in private unaided professional
colleges and 50% students admitted by such
colleges under Management quota. The SIT
(Special Investigation Team) adjusted all the
excess admitted students in these 25 private
unaided professional colleges, i.e. upto 85%
students by counselling and upto 50%
students
by
management.
Thus,
the
submission of the petitioner that the SIT has
not considered the excess admitted students
whose results were declared in terms of Shri
Puran Prasad Gupta (Supra) is incorrect.(Para
69(i))

The petitioners who obtained appointments
on the post of Assistant Teachers on the
basis of fake B.Ed. Degrees and who fall
under 2,823 fake students declared by the
University, their orders of cancellation of
appointments or dismissal from service on
the ground of obtaining appointments on
the basis of fake B.Ed. 2005 degree cannot
be interfered with by invoking, equitable
and discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioners who have been declared fake
students, their order of cancellation of
appointments or dismissal from service
passed by the concerned District Basic
Education
Officer
are
affirmed.
(Para
69(vi))

The Court held that holding disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
petitioners
envisages by Article 311 of the Constitution
of India or under any disciplinary rules
including Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 shall not rise. (Para
69(viii))

Writ Petition Disposed off. (E-10)

List of cases cited:-

1. Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree
College Vs. State of U.P. and ors. Civil Writ
No. 399 (MB) of 2017

2. S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union Of India (1990) 4
SCC 594

3. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab Nation Bank
2009 (2) SCC 570 (distinguished)

4. Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
and ors. 2001 (10) SCC 282 (distinguished)

5. Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Verma
2017 (9) ADJ 680(distinguished)

6. L.I.C. of India Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen
2010 (4) SCC 491 (distinguished)

7. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors. Writ A
No. 18163 of 2019

8. State of Bihar Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad 2019
(1) ESC-3 (SC)

9.
Punjab
Urban
Planng
Authority
Vs.
Karamjeet Singh AIR 2019 SCC 1913

10. Union of India and ors Vs. Raghuwar Pal
Singh 2018 (15) SCC 463

11. Nidhi Kayam And ors. Vs. State of M.P.
and
ors.
2017
(4)
SCC
1
6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 657
12. Bank of India and ors. Vs. Avish D. Mandi
Vikar and ors. 2005 (7) SCC 690

13. R. Vishwanath Pillai Vs. State of Kerla
2004 (2) SCC 105

14. Rita Mishra Vs. Director of Primary
Education, Bihar AIR 1998 (Patna) 26

15. Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of
Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697

16. TMA Pie Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka
(2002) 8 SCC 481

17. P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra
2005 6 SCC 537

18. Sunil Kumar Vs. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar,
University and anr. Writ C No. 2906 of 2013

19. Tilak Singh and 495 ors Vs. State of U.P.
and 4 ors. Writ A No. 468 of 2020

20. Union of Inida & anr. Vs. Raghuwar Pal
Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463

21. Nidhi Kaim & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 1

22. Rita Mishra & ors. Vs. Director, Primary
Education, Bihar & ors. AIR 1988 Patna 26

23. R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala &
ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105

24. State of Bihar Vs. Kriti Narayan Prasad
2019 (1) ESC 3

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Sri
Shashinandan, Sri H.N. Singh, Sri R.K.
Ojha, and Sri V.K. Singh, learned senior
advocates along with their assisting
counsels, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri
Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Sri Siddharth
Khare, Sri Rohit Upadhyay, Sri Rakesh
Kumar Singh, Sri Kailash Nath Singh, Sri
Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Sri Vineet Kumar
Singh, Sri K.M. Yadav, Sri Upendra
Kumar, Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri Vinod Kumar
Singh, Sri Man Bahadur Singh, Sri
Rajeev Kumar and Sri Ram Jatan Yadav
and other learned counsels for the
petitioners, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri
Bhupendra
Kumar
Yadav,
Sri
Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Vikram Bahadur
Singh, Sri A.K. Yadav, Sri Yatindra, Sri
Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Sri Shyam
Krishna Gupta, Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar,
Sri Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, Sri Suresh
Kumar, Sri B.K. Yadav, Sri Sanjay
Chaturvedi and Sri Shravan Kumar
Pandey, learned counsels for the District
Basic Education Officers and the U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, Sri
M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri J.N.
Maurya, CSC I and Sri R.P. Dubey,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
counsel for the State respondents, and, Sri
Ashok Mehta, learned senior advocate
assisted by Sri Gagan Mehta, Sri M.N.
Singh and Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned
counsels for the respondent Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar,
University,
Agra.
Sri
Akhilesh
Chandra
Misra,
Advocate
whose name is appearing in several writ
petitions as counsel for the respondent
University has not appeared.

2. This batch of writ petitions were heard
at length on several days. Learned
counsels for the petitioners have argued
the matter on 12.02.2020, 13.02.2020,
14.02.2020,
18.02.2020,
20.02.2020,
24.02.2020 and 03.03.2020. Arguments
on behalf of respondent University were
heard on 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020.
Learned Additional Advocate General on
behalf of State has also argued on
03.03.2020. In rejoinder submissions
were made by learned counsels for the
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners on 4.03.2020, 05.03.2020 and
06.03.2020. WRIT - A No. - 190 of 2020
and WRIT - A No. - 13785 of 2019 have
been treated as leading writ petition in
which the respondent University filed
counter affidavits and supplementary
counter
affidavits
but
no
rejoinder
affidavits
have
been
filed
by
the
petitioners despite time granted on
10.02.2020 on request of Sri Ashok
Khare, Sri H.N. Singh, Sri R.K. Ojha,
learned senior advocates which fact is
noted in the order dated 10.02.2020.

Facts

3. Petitioners in this batch of writ
petition are Assistant Teachers. They
obtained
employment
as
Assistant
Teachers on the basis of alleged B.Ed.
Degree - 2005 shown to have been issued
by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University,
Agra.
Subsequently
their
degree/marksheets were found to be fake
or tampered. Special Investigation Team
(SIT) was constituted under the Orders of
this Court in Writ Petition No. - 2906 of
2013 (PIL) (Sunil Kumar Vs.Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar University And Another). The
SIT submitted its report dated 14.08.2017
giving details of fake degrees/marksheets
and
tampered
degrees/marksheet.
Thereafter, the District Basic Education
Officers issued notices to the petitioners
requiring them to show cause as to why
their appointments be not cancelled on the
ground of their B.Ed. Degrees/marksheets
to be fake or tampered. Thereafter the
impugned
orders
cancelling
the
appointments of the petitioners were
passed.

4. Subsequently, the respondent Dr.
Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra.
Also issued notices to all the students
having fake B.Ed. Degrees/marksheets
and
those
having
tampered
degrees/marksheets. These notices dated
28.12.2019 were published on official
website of the University as well as in
several largely circulated daily news
papers, including "Amar Ujala" (Hindi)
and "Times of India" (English) on
29.12.2019.

5. The decision of the Executive
Council of the respondent - University
dated 06.12.2019 for taking action with
respect
to
the
fake
B.Ed.
Degrees/Marksheet - 2005 and tampered
B.Ed. Degrees and marksheets - 2005 and
the aforesaid notices dated 28.12.2019
published in newspaper on 29.12.2019
and on the official website of the
respondent - University, were challenged
by 496 persons by filing Writ WRIT - A
No. - 468 of 2020 (Tilak Singh And 495
Others Vs. State Of U P And 4 Others)
which was dismissed by this Court by
order dated 20.1.2020. Relevant portion
of the aforesaid order dated 20.01.2020 in
the case of Tilak Singh (supra) is
reproduced below:-

"6. Upon investigation, the SIT
team submitted report in August, 2017
which states that 3517 fake mark sheets
and 1053 tampered mark sheets were
distributed and these mark sheets have
been adjusted in the tabulation chart. The
SIT categorized the candidates in two list.
One list of those candidates whose mark
sheets are fake and the second list of
those candidates whose marks sheet have
been tampered. The Deputy Inspector
General of Police, SIT by letter dated
11.07.2019 forwarded the aforesaid two
list alongwith photo copy of tabulation
chart to the University. He further
requested the University by the said letter
6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 659
to verify the list of candidates from its
record,
and
after
identifying
the
candidates possessing fake and tampered
degrees, it should proceed to cancel all
such degrees as per procedure provided
in the U.P. State Universities Act,1973
(hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1973'). The
aforesaid letter was followed by the letter
of Additional Chief Secretary dated
25.11.2019
addressed
to
the
Vice
Chancellor of the University making
similar request to him.
7. Thereafter, the Executive Council of
the University held an emergent meeting
on 06.12.2019 and after considering the
letter of the State Government dated
25.11.2019 took a decision to verify the
list of fake/tampered candidates received
from the Special Investigation Team and
to invite objection against the same. The
relevant extract of decision of the
Executive
Council
is
extracted
hereinbelow:-

"mDr ijh{kk lfefr fnukad 06-08-2016
ds fu.kZ; dh laiqf"V dk;Z ifj"kn cSBd 28-08-2017
esa gks pqdh gSA

fu.kZ;% vij eq[; lfpo] jktLo ,oa csfld
f'k{kk m0 iz0 'kklu ds i= la[;k& 583@
ALUBRLS dw @19 fnukad 25-11-2019 dks
ifj"kn ds le{k पढ़कर सुनाया गया I

vkoafVr lhVksa ds lkis{k vf/kd la[;k vFkkZr
100 lhVksd ij tks 135 izos'k@ijh{kk djk;h x;h gS
ml lEcU/k esa ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 dh tkap vk[;k crk;h
tk;sA dqy lfpo us ek0 lnL; dks voxr djk;k
fd tkap rRdkyhu vf/kdkjh Jh iqrku flag ,oa
orZeku esa ,0,l0ih0 ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 Jherh ve`rk
feJk }kjk crk;k x;k fd ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 us
fo'ofo|ky; }kjk 85 lhVsa ,oa egkfo|ky; }kjk 50
lhVksa dks tksMrs gq;s dqy 135 leLr Nk=@Nk=kvksa
ds vadrkfydk] mikf/k lEcU/kh pkVZ dh tkap dh
x;h gSA bl izdkj izcU/kdh; dksVs esa izosf'kr Nk=ksa
dks lfEefyr fd;k x;kA dqylfpo }kjk ifj"kn dks
crk;k x;k fd vfxze dk;Zokgh ,l0vkbZ0Vh0
eq[;ky; y[kuÃ... ls tkudkjh ,oa ewy vfHkys[k
ysdj dh tk;sxhA ppkZ ds nkSjku ek0 lnL; izks0
lat; pkS/kjh }kjk /kkjk& 49 Â1⁄4,Â1⁄2 ,oa 67 ls rFkk
lEcfU/kr ifjfu;e dh tkudkjh pkgh x;hA
dqylfpo us ifj"kn dsk lEcfU/kr izko/kkuksa ls voxr
djk;k x;k fd%&

पररतनयि-13-03 "Before taking any action
under Section 67 for the withdrawal of
any
degree,
diploma
or
certificate
conferred or granted by the University,
the person concerned shall be given and
opportunity to explain the charge against
him. The charge framed against shall be
communicated
by
the
Registrar
by
registered post and the person concerned
shall
be
required
to
submit
his
explanation within a period of not less
than fifteen days of the receipt of the
charges".

ds vUrxZr fMxzh] fMIyksek okfil ysus ds igys
jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk 15 fnu lwpuk ds lkFk lEcfU?kr
ls Li"Vhdj.k ekxk tk;sxkA lHkh lEcfU/kr
Nk=@Nk=kvksa ds irk ----------rks fo'ofo|ky; vkSj
uo ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ds ikl miyC/k gS bl leL;k ds
lek/kku gsrq lnL;x.kksa us lq>ko fn;k fd
,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls izkIr MkVk dks fo'ofo|ky; dh
csclkbM ij viyksM djk;k tk;sA ifj"kn us ;g Hkh
fu.kZ; fy;k fd ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls lEcfU/kr lwpuk
ih0Mh0,Q0 izk:i esa izkIr dh tk;sA ftlls vfxze
dk;Zokgh lqpk: :i ls lapkfyr gks ldsA blds
fy;s ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls vfoyEc vuqjks/k fd;k tk;s A
rnksijkUr nSfud lekpkj i=ksa es bl vk'k; dk
lekpkj Hkh izdkf'kr djk;k tk;sA bl izLrko ij
lnL;x.kksa us Fake ,oa Tampered dh lwph dks
lkoZtfud fd;s tkus ij lgefr iznku dhA bl
izdkj lEcfU/kr O;fDr ls izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj
ij fu;ekuqlkj fof/kd dk;Zokgh dh tk;s rFkk
le;≤ ij ijh{kk lfefr fo'ofo|ky; lHkk rFkk
dk;Z& ifj"kn dks voxr djk;s tkus dk fu.kZ;
fy;k x;kA d`r dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr foHkkx ,oa
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks vko';d :i ls lwfpr
fd;k tk;sA

c& dk;Zifj"kn }kjk fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx]
fo'ofo|ky; vkSj egkfo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kdkas vkSj vU;
'kSf{kd deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq U;wure vgZrk
rFkk mPprj f'k{kk es ekudks ds j[k j[kko gsrq vU;
mik; lEcU/kh fofu;e 2018 ds lEcU/k es mRrj
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
izns'k 'kklu mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx&1 ds i= la[;k&
890@lRrj&1&2019&16 1⁄41141⁄2 @2010 fnukad 16
vxLr&2019 dks dk;Zifj"kn ds vuqeksnu dh
izR;k'kk esa dqyifr vkns'k fnukad 21-11-2019 ds
vUrxZr Mk0 Hkhe jko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk
dh ifjfu;ekoyh dh /kkjk& 21-14 ij iz[;kfir
fd;s
tkus
ls
voxr
djkukA
fu.kZ; dk;Z ifj"kn mDr en ls voxr gqbZA ifj"kn
us dqyifr d`r dk;Zokgh dks vuqeksnu iznku
fd;kA"
8. Pursuant to the decision of the
Executive
Council,
the
University
proceeded to publish the notice in
newspaper whereby all the candidates,
who had passed the B.Ed. examination
during the academic session 2004-05,
have been intimated that three list namely
list of fake candidates, list of tampered
candidates
and
list
of
candidates
appearing in the examination on the basis
of roll number allotted to more than one
candidate has been published on the
official
website
of
the
University
requiring such individual candidate to
submit reply online as also offline by
registered or speed post within a period
of
15
days
failing
which
exparte
proceedings would be taken.

9. The Vice Chancellor on
28.12.2019 passed an order to upload the
list of fake candidates, list of tampered
candidates
and
list
of
candidates
appearing in the examination on the basis
of roll number allotted to more than one
candidate for uploading on the official
website of the University. Thereafter, a
detailed public notice has been released
on the official website of the University
on 29.12.2019 and University proceeded
to publish three separate list namely; list
of fake candidates, list of tampered
candidates and list of candidates as
candidates from among more than one
candidate, who have appeared in the
examination with the same roll number
alongwith said notice and questionnaire.
The said notice alongwith questionnaire
issued by the University is extracted
hereinbelow:-

 ",rn~}kjk loZ lk/kkj.k ,oa lEcfU/kr dks
lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;kfpdk la[;k 2006@2013
lquhy dqekj cuke Mk0 Hkhejko vkacsMdj
fo'ofo|ky; vkxjk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
bYkkgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa ch0
,M0 l+= 2004&2005 ds izdj.kksa esa tkapksijkUr
,l0vkbZ0Vh0 eq[;ky; mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ esa
eq0v0la0
02@2015
/kkjk
409@420@467@468@471@204@201
lifBr
120 ch Hkk0n0fo0 o 13 1⁄411⁄2 Mh 1⁄421⁄2 1⁄431⁄2 Hkz0fu0
vf/kfu;e cuke gjh'k dlkuk vkfn iathd`r fd;k
x;k gSA mDr eq0 v0 la0 es izpfyr foospuk ds
dze es ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 }kjk lEcfU/kr Nk=ksa dh rhu
lwfp;kW& Qsad] VsEiMZ o ,d gh vuqdzekad ij ijh{kk
nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd Nk=ksa dh lwph iszf"kr djrs
gq;s fo'ofo|ky; ls vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dh
vis{kk dh xbZ gSA

bl fo"k; esa fo'ofo|ky; dh dk;Z&ifj"kn
dh cSBd fnukad 06-12-2019 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds
vuqlkj ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls izkIr rhuksa Js.kh ds Nk=ksa es
ls Qsad (Fake) o VsEiMZ 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa o ,d
gh vuqdzekad ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd
Nk=ksa dk fooj.k fo'ofo|ky; dh vf/kd`r osclkbM
www./dbrau. Org.in ij izlkfjr gSA

1⁄4v1⁄2 Qsad Nk=ksa dh lwphA

1⁄4c1⁄2 VsEiMZ Nk+=ksa dh lwphA

1⁄4l1⁄2 ,d gh jksy uEcj ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d
ls vf/kd Nk=ksa dh lwphA

Qsad (Fake) ,oa VSEiMZ Nk=ksa ,oa ,d gh
vuqdzekad ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd Nk=ksa
dh lwph esa ukfer Nk=ksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS
fd os bl lwpuk ds izdk'ku dh frfFk ls 15 fnol
ds vUnj dqylfpo] Mk0 Hkhejko vakcsMdj
fo'ofo|ky;]
vkxjk
dks
vkWu
ykbZu
,oa
iathd`r@LihM iksLV }kjk gkMZ dkih izsf"kr djrs
gq;s viuk i{k ,oa vkifRr;ka izLrqr djsa ftlls
muds izdj.kksa esa vxzsrj fof/k lEer dk;Zokgh dh
tk ldsA vU;Fkk dh fLFkfr esa mijksDr vafdr
izdj.kksa esa fo'ofo|ky; dks ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh
djus
gsrq
ck/;
gksuk
iMsxkA
VSEiMZ
6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 661
mikf/ki=ksa@vadi=ksa okys Nk=ksa dh lwph ij fof/kd
dk;Zokgh i`Fkd ls izpfyr dh tk;sxhA

mDr dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
bykgkckn }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k 2906@2013 lquhy
dqekj cuke Mk0 Hkhejko vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;
vkxjk ds fu.kZ;k/khu gksxhA

MkW0 Hkhejko vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk

1⁄4iwoZorhZ vkxjk fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk1⁄2

ch- ,M- o"kZ 2005 1⁄4,l0 vkbZ0 Vh0 tkap ls
lEcaf/kr1⁄2 izos'k@ijh{kk lEcaf/kr fooj.k

uksV%& ,l0 vkbZ0 Vh0 tkap ls lEcaf/kr fuEu
lwpuk;s fo'ofo|ky; osclkbV w.dbrau.org.in ij
viyksM dj 'kh"kZd& ch0 ,M0 eq[; ijh{kk 2005
lEcU/kh izR;kosnu lhYM fyQkQs eas dsoy
iathd`r@LihM iksLV ds dqylfpo] MkW- Hkhejko
vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk dks izsf"kr djsA

1
Nk=@Nk=k dk uke

2
Nk=@Nk=k
dk
LFkkbZ@i=O;ogkj dk irk]
eks0 uEcj ,oa vk/kkj dkMZ
uEcjA

3
Nk=@ Nk=k ds firk dk
ukeA

4
izos'k ijh{kk dk vuqdzekadA

5
ftl egkfo|ky; esa izos'k
fy;k mldk uke

6
izos'k dkmfUlfyax vFkok
izcU/kdh; dksVs esa gqvk
1⁄4Li"V mYys[k djsa1⁄2

7
DkamfUlfyax
la[;k@izcU/kdh; dksVs esa
izos'k
lwph
esa
LFkku
1⁄4dkmfUlfyax i= layXu
djsAa1⁄2

8
egkfo|ky; eas izos'k ds
le;
izos'k
'kqYd
Mak¶V@udn tek djkus dk
fooj.kA
Mk¶V@jlhn
la[;k-------------
@/kujkf'k-----------
fnukad
1⁄4izek.k
lfgr1⁄2
9
egkfo|ky; esa LdkWyjf'ki
izkIr dh n'kk esa fooj.kA
Mk¶V@jlhn
la[;k-------------
@/kujkf'k-----------
fnukad
1⁄4izek.k
lfgr1⁄2
10
Ukekadu
la[;k
(Enrollment No.)

11
eq[; ijh{kk ch0 ,M0 05 dk
vuqdzekad

12
ch0 ,M0 o"kZ 2005 eq[;
ijh{kk ds ijh{kk dsUnz dk
uke

13
ch0 ,M0 o"kZ 2005 ijh{kk esa
cSBus dk izos'k i= dh Nk;k
izfrA

14
ch0 ,M0 o"kZ 2005 dh
ijh{kk es lfEefyr gksus ds
ckn
vadrkfydk
Lo;a
izekf.kr dj layXu djsaA

15
;fn vLFkkbZ izek.k i=
fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fuxZr
fd;k x;k gks rks izek.k i=ksa
dh la[;k&leLr vLFkkbZ
izek.k i=ksa dh Nk;k izfr
layXu djsaA

16
ewy mikf/k dk fooj.k
dzekad la[;k

17
vU; dksbZ fooj.k@lwpuk

uksV&mijksDr ls lEcfU/kr lHkh vfHkys[kksa dh
Loizekf.kr izfr;kW@izek.kd vfuok;Z :i ls layXu
djsA
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

layXuksa dh la[;k vadks eas ---------------------------1⁄4'kCnks
esa1⁄2----------------

lEcfU/kr egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;Z }kjk
vxzlkj.k&
izekf.kr
fd;k
tkrk
gS
fd
Jh@Jherh@dqekjh ------------------iq=@iq=h -----------------------
-fuoklh --------------------------us egkfo|ky; esa o"kZ
2004&05 dkamlfyax esutesUV--------------------ds vUrxZr
fof/k lEer izosf'kr Nk=@Nk=k Fks@FkhA Jh --------------
----------dks tks vadrkfydk fo'ofo|ky; }kjk tkjh dh
x;h Fkh mlds ---------vad izkIr gq;s gks rFkk lS)kfUrd
esa -----------------Js.kh rFkk izk;ksfxd esa ----------------------Js.kh
FkkA

छात्र/छात्रा के हस्ताक्षर----------------- प्राचायग

तिनांक ----------------- हस्ताक्षर एिं िुहर"

10. The hard copy of the
questionnaire is to bear the signature of
the candidate and also the seal and
signature of the Principal of the College.
The aforesaid public notice calling upon
the petitioners to submit information as
required
in
the
questionnaire
are
impugned in the present petition.

11. Challenging the aforesaid
notices, learned Senior Counsel has made
following submissions;

(i) The decision of the Executive
Counsel in its meeting dated 06.12.2019
to verify and identify the fake and
tampered marks sheet of B.Ed. for the
academic session 2004-05 is not an
independent decision of the Executive
Council rather the said exercise is being
undertaken on the dictate of the letter of
Additional
Chief
Secretary
dated
25.11.2019 as well as letter of Deputy
Inspector
General
of
Police
dated
11.07.2019

 (ii) The investigation report of
SIT has not yet been accepted either by
this Court or by any other Court, and the
said report cannot be treated to be a
substantial and conclusive piece of
evidence to arrive at a conclusion that
marks sheet/degree obtained by the
petitioners are fake or tampered. In
support of his contentions, he has placed
reliance upon the judgement of Apex
Court in the case of M.C. Mehta (Taj
Corridor Scam) Vs. Union of India and
Others 2007(1) SCC 10 & judgement of
Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the
case of Major Basil John Vs. State of
Kerala and Others Crl. M.C. No.1877 of
2015 decided on 22.06.2017.

(iii) Controversy regarding
the validity of marks sheet obtained by the
petitioners is already concluded by the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
no.399 (MB) of 2007 (Shri Puran Prasad
Gupta Memorial Degree College Vs.
State of U.P. and Others) as this Court
has validated the admission of petitioners
and directed for declaration of result.
Hence, the aforesaid exercise undertaken
by the University to verify the marks sheet
in order to find out the fake and tampered
marks sheet is nothing but an abuse of
process of law.

(iv) As per Section 67 of the Act,
1973, the Court may by a two-third
majority of the members present and
voting withdraw from any person any
degree,
or
certificate
conferred
or
granted by the University. In the present
case, the decision to cancel the degree
has not been taken by the Court but by the
Executive Council, who is not competent
to initiate such process as the Court and
Executive Council are two different
authorities under the Act, 1973. Thus, the
verification exercise undertaken by the
Executive Council is without jurisdiction.
He further submits that statute 13.03 of
the First Statutes of the Agra University
provides the procedure and the manner
which is to be followed before taking
6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 663
decision to cancel the degree, but the
notices
impugned
are
in
complete
violation of statute 13.03 inasmuch as the
said notice does not communicate the
charge against the petitioners so as to
enable them to submit their explanation.

13. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused
the record.

20. At this juncture, it would be
relevant to refer the chain of events in
which the present exercise to verify and
cancel the fake, fabricated and tampered
marks sheet and degrees have been
undertaken. This Court while considering
the Writ C No.2906 of 2013 (Sushil
Kumar Vs. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar
University and Another) found that the
original cross list produced pertaining to
B.Ed. examination 2005 does not bear
signature
of
any
of
the
authority
concerned. The first order passed in the
writ petition is extracted hereinbelow:-

"Vice-Chancellor
of
the
University
should
file
his
personal
affidavit after inspection of original
records in respect of B.Ed. examination
2005, by the next date.

Original cross list has been
produced today pertaining to B.Ed.
Examination 2005 before this Court. It is
surprising that none of the pages of the
register bear any signature of any officer.
Such register appears to be, prima facie,
a manufactured document. It is stated that
cross list are required to be signed by
duly authorized persons and it is only
then that the cross list can be accepted as
genuine. It is also stated that all cross list
of other examinations are duly signed by
the officers of the University.

List on 12.03.2013.

The cross list produced today is
returned
to
the
counsel
for
the
University."

21. In the said writ petition, the
Vice Chancellor had filed an affidavit
contending therein that though, the First
Information Report has been lodged with
the police with regard to fake mark-sheets
issued to the students but no investigation
had taken place. In the aforesaid
backdrop, the Court directed the State to
be impleaded as a party by order dated
05.08.2013. On the direction of this
Court, a preliminary investigation was
carried out. The preliminary investigation
report revealed the shocking state of
affairs in the University. Consequently,
this Court on 14.03.2014 issued a
direction to the Secretary, Home, U.P.
Lucknow, to assign the investigation to a
Special Investigation Agency of the State
other than C.B, C.I.D. Pursuant to the
direction of
this Court, a
special
investigation team was constituted by the
orders of Deputy Director General of
Police dated 06.05.2014. Subsequently,
this Court on 09.09.2015 after noticing
the previous orders directed the Registrar
General to place the said matter before
Hon'ble The Chief Justice requesting him
that the writ petition be treated and dealt
with as a Public Interest Ligation by the
appropriate Bench.

24. The first contention of Sri
Khare that exercise undertaken by the
Executive Council is not an independent
exercise but has been done at the behest
of the State Government is misconceived
inasmuch as the University had full
knowledge about the fact that the large
scale fraud has been committed in issuing
the fake and tampered marks sheet of
B.Ed. Examination-2005, which fact is
also fortified from the personal affidavit
of the Vice Chancellor of the University
filed before this Court wherein he has
made a categorical averment that as
many as 6 FIR had been lodged to
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigate the allegation of issuance of
fake and tampered mark-sheets to the
students in collusion with the University
employee but no investigation was done
by the Police and a request was made to
the Court through the said affidavit to
handover
the
investigation
to
any
independent agency. In the aforesaid
backdrop, this Court passed an order for
constituting
SIT
to
carryout
the
investigation.

25. The exercise of verification
of fake as well as tampered degree should
have been undertaken by the University
voluntarily instead of waiting for any
direction from the Court or authority
more so when it was aware of the fact
that the fake and tampered mark-sheets
have been issued to the students in
connivance with the employees of the
University.
Thus,
to
say
that
the
verification exercise undertaken by the
University is on the dictate of the State
Government
is
not
correct
and
misconceived. In this view of the fact, the
first submission of the petitioner is not
sustainable.
26. As far as the second contention of Sri
Khare that report of SIT is not a
conclusive piece of evidence and that
cannot be considered and relied upon to
hold that degree/marks sheet of the
candidates mentioned in the list of
candidates of fake marks sheet or
tampered
marks
sheet
also
lacks
substance for the reason that the
respondents have not yet cancelled the
marks sheet/degree of the candidates
categorized in the three list; the list of
candidates of fake mark-sheet, list of
candidates of tampered mark-sheets and
list of candidates appearing in the
examination on the basis of roll number
allotted to more than one candidate,
rather the authority has issued a notice
inviting details from each candidate in the
form of questionnaire so as to verify the
fact as to whether name of a candidate in
the list of fake or tampered marks sheet
has been correctly shown in the list
submitted by the SIT. Had the authorities
treated the report of SIT to be a
conclusive piece of evidence, there was
no occasion for the respondents to
publish the notice impugned in the writ
petition and asking the candidates to
furnish
information
sought
in
the
questionnaire. Further, the two letters
dated 11.07.2019 & 25.11.2019 of the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, SIT
& Additional Chief Secretary also directs
the University to follow the procedure as
provided in the Act, 1973 for cancellation
of a degree. Thus, this Court does not find
any merit in the second submission of the
counsel for the petitioner.

28.
As
regards
the
third
submission
of
Sri
Khare
that
the
controversy as regards the validity of
admission and issuance of the marksheets of the petitioners have already
been concluded by this Court in Writ
Petition no.399 (MB) of 2007 (Shri Puran
Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College
Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and other
writ
petitions,
this
Court
without
adverting
upon
the
merits
of
the
contention advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel finds it appropriate that
the petitioners may raise the said
contention before the authority concerned
as each individual candidate has to
demonstrate that his case is covered by
the said judgement and this Court has
validated his admission.

30. Now, coming to the fourth
contention of Sri Khare, it is relevant to
mention that the Court is vested with the
power under Section 67 of the Act, 1973
to cancel the degree/marks sheet. The
6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 665
Court under Act, 1973 is to exercise such
power only in cases where the University
finds that the marks sheet or degree has
been issued by the University though, it
has been tampered. The procedure
contemplated under the Act, 1973 cannot
be said to be applicable to cancel those
degrees
which
according
to
the
University have not been issued by it and
have been procured by the candidates
from outside with which the University
has no concern.

31. In the case in hand, the
Executive Council has undertaken the
exercise to verify and sort out list of
candidates whose degree or marks sheet
are fake and list of candidates whose
marks sheet are tampered and list of
candidates who have appeared with the
roll number allotted to many other
candidates. The Court as defined in the
Act, 1973 is not empowered to carryout
any such exercise, and it is only Executive
Council who has power to undertake such
exercise. Therefore, the last submission of
Sri Khare is also devoid of merit.

32. It has also been urged by Sri
Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel that
questionnaire issued by the respondents
requires certain information which may
not be available with the petitioners and
further the said questionnaire requires
that it shall bear the seal and signature of
principal of the College which is wholly
impossible inasmuch as the principal of
the concerned college has refused to sign
the form and petitioners are helpless to
supply information as sought through the
questionnaire.

33.
A
perusal
of
the
questionnaire reveals that it has not
sought any information which cannot be
said to be available with the petitioners.
The information sought through the
aforesaid questionnaire are essential to
find out and segregate fake and tampered
marks sheet/degree. Thus, in the opinion
of the Court, the said contention also does
not stand to its merit.

34. This Court while exercising
power under Article 226 of Constitution
of India cannot shut its eyes about the
entire chain of events which had led to
unearth scam of such a magnitude where
fake marks sheet have been procured by
the candidates with impunity and on the
basis of such fake or tampered marks
sheet, they have obtained employment as
Assistant Teacher.

36. However, this Court cannot
also loose sight of the fact that petitioners
have obtained employment on the basis of
marks sheet alleged to have been issued
to them and have been working for more
than a decade. Further, there may be
cases where Principal of the concerned
college may refuse to put signature on the
questionnaire and the petitioners cannot
force the Principal of the concerned
college to put signature and seal on the
questionnaire and petitioners may be
rendered remedy less. Therefore, in the
interest of justice and fairplay, this Court
is of the opinion that University while
carrying out the exercise to verify the
mark-sheet/degree
should
follow
the
following observation of the Court:-

(i)
The
University
while
verifying the mark-sheet/degree of a
candidate may not refuse to consider the
questionnaire of a candidate if the same
does not bear the signature & seal of the
Principal of the college.

(ii) In case after verification,
the University disowns the degree of a
candidate being fake, the University is not
required
to
follow
the
procedure
contemplated under the Act, 1973 for
cancellation
of
degree/marks
sheet.
However, it is desirable in the interest of
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justice and fairplay that the University in
such cases should pass reasoned and
speaking order giving the basis on which
it has formed opinion that degree is fake
and has not been issued by the University.

(iii). In case University finds
that the degree/marks sheet have been
issued by it though tampered, in such an
event, the University is expected to follow
the procedure provided in the Act, 1973
and give a show cause notice to such
candidate
and
thereafter,
pass
appropriate orders.

6. The respondent University took
decision
dated
07.02.2020
declaring
2,823 students to be fake students who
managed to procure fake B.Ed. degrees.
The matter of remaining 814 students are
under consideration of the University who
have
submitted
their
representations
either with complete or incomplete
information. A copy of the order dated
07.02.2020 passed by the Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar, University, Agra has been
filed alongwith a supplementary counter
affidavit dated 10.02.2020 in Writ A
No.190 of 2020. No rejoinder affidavit to
it has been filed. Aforesaid order of the
University,
despite
being
in
the
knowledge of the petitioners; has not been
challenged by any of the petitioners either
by filing a separate writ petition or by
seeking amendment in this batch of writ
petitions.

7. The list of 2823 students declared
fake by the University by order dated
07.02.2020 has been made part of the order
which is scanned and pasted as Appendix I to
this judgement.

8. In this batch of writ petitions the
petitioners have challenged the orders passed
by
District
Basic
Education
Officers
cancelling the appointments of the petitioners
or holding the appointments to be void ab
initio on the ground that these were obtained
on the basis of fake B.Ed. Degrees or on the
basis of tampered B.Ed. Marksheets. None of
the petitioners have challenged the order dated
07.02.2020
passed
by
the
respondent
University declaring 2,823 persons to be fake
students. None of the petitioners have filed
any amendment application to amend the
pleadings and / or to challenge the aforesaid
order of the respondent - University dated
07.02.2020.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

9. Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner in Writ-A No.19981 of 2019
submitted that he is arguing for the petitioners
whose B.Ed. Degrees/Marksheet-2005 are
alleged to be tampered or has been declared
fake. He submits as under:-

(i) Marks sheet issued to petitioners
bears the note that the marks register shall
be final in case there is discrepancy
between the marks sheet issued and marks
register of the University. Therefore, the
marks register (tabulation chart) is final.

(ii) The University has proceeded
merely on the basis of report of SIT and
declared 2823 students as fake merely
because these students could not submit
reply. Therefore, the order of University
dated
07.02.2020
to
declare
the
petitioners as fake, is wholly unjustified.

(iii) No notice was issued by the
University to students before declaring
them as fake by order dated 07.02.2020.

(iv) University has merely presumed
that since the name of the petitioners are
not mentioned in the mark register and,
therefore, such students are fake.

(v) Mark register or tabulation
register is a final paper. Therefore, the
6 All. Ram Niwas Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 667
University should have first determined
whether petitioners' name appears in the
marks register and if it does not appear,
only then matter can be further inquired,
to find out whether there is any
manipulation.

(vi) As per paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of
the order of the University dated
07.02.2020 filed as Annexure-SA-I in
Writ-A No.