# Satyaveer Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 418
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 48129 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyaveer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53897
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,804 of 43,986. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39804 for what follows._

418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
तक उसका शरीर उनका साथ दे। वह मकसी भी पदामधकारी से मकसी
भी प्रकार की मशकायत का भाव नहीं रखते हैं। मात्र उमचत सम्मान
के प्राथी है।

१४. यामचकाकताट के मवद्वान वररष्ठ अमधविा श्री एच. एन. मसंह ने
प्रमतवेदन मकया मक प्रमतवादी संख्या पांच ने कोई प्रत्युत्तर नहीं मदया है एवं
प्रमतवादी संख्या - १,२ एवं ३ के द्वारा दामखल प्रमतशपथ पत्र में पूवट में
उकलेमखत घटना को बहुत सामान्य रूप से अटवीकार मकया है एवं अन्य
कारकों के दृमष्गत वो घटना ही आक्षेमपत आदेश पाररत करने का कारण हो
सकती है। मवमधक रूप से आक्षेमपत आदेश पाररत नहीं मकया जा सकता
था। आक्षेमपत आदेश तथ्यात्मक दृमष् से भी मवकृत है। जब यामचकाकताट
अमववामदत रूप से न्यास का कमटचारी ही नहीं है तो अमधमनयम- १९८३ के
उपबन्ध उस पर लागू ही नहीं हो सकते हैं। अमन्तम न्यास की बैठक में मलये
गये मनणटयों का पूणटतैः मवपरीत अथट, आक्षेमपत आदेश में मदया गया है जो
न्यायसंगत नहीं है। इसी प्रकार यामचकाकताट ६० विट का हो गया है मात्र इस
कारण 'आचायट' का कायट नहीं कर सकता, यह मनणटय भी न्यायसंगत नहीं
है।

१५. प्रमतवादी सं० १,२ व ३ के मवद्वान अमधविा श्री मवनीत
संककप ने आक्षेमपत आदेश का समथटन करने की असफल कोमशश करी,
क्योमक उपरोि वमणटत तथ्य उनके मकसी भी तकट के मवरोध में है। उन्होनें
पुनैः मनवेदन मकया मक यह न्यायालय वतटमान प्रकरण की पररमटथमतयों के
दृमष्गत जो आदेश पाररत करेगा, उसका यथायोग सम्मान मकया जायेगा।

१६. उपरोि के संदभट में इस न्यायालय का मत है मक
यामचकाकताट के पक्ष में मदये तकट में बल है मक आक्षेमपत आदेश
तथ्यात्मक व मवमधक दोनों रूपों में त्रुमटपूणट है। यह भी मनधाटररत मकया जा
सकता है मक आदेश मदनांमकत १२.०७.२००० टवयं में मवरोधाभािी है।
यामचकाकताट न तो न्यास का कमटचारी और न ही ६० विट की उम्र के के
उपरान्त भी, उपरोि कायट सम्पामदत करने में कोई मवमधक बाधा है
पररमटथमतयों के दृमष्गत आक्षेमपत आदेश पूवाटग्रह से ग्रमसत भी प्रतीत होता
है। 'आचायट' का पद एक परम्परागत पद है या यह कहा जा सकता है मक यह
एक 'दामयत्व' है। उसकी मंमदर के मकसी साधारण कमटचारी से तुलना नहीं
की जा सकती है। अतैः आदेश मदनांमकत १२.०७.२००० खमण्डत मकया
जाता है और इसी कारणवश अन्य आदेश मदनांमकत २२.०२.२०२३ भी
न्यायसंगत न होने के कारण खमण्डत मकया जाता है और समटत
पररमटथमतयों व सभी पक्षों के प्रमतवेदन के दृमष्गत वतटमान यामचका मनम्न
मनदेशों के साथ मनटताररत की जाती हैैः-

क. यामचकाकताट पूवट की भांमत ही रामत्र भोग श्रृंगार
आरती का सम्पादन मवमधपूवटक करता रहेगा। मजसका कोई मानदेय नहीं
होगा।

ख. प्रमतवादी संख्या १,२ व ३ यह सुमनमश्चत करेंगे मक
पूजन-अचटन सुगमता से सम्पामदत होता रहे एवं यामचकाकताट उमचत सम्मान
का अमधकारी रहेगा।

ग. यामचकाकताट यमद चाहे तो सप्ताह में तीन मदन
(सोमवार, बुद्धवार व गुरूवार) को ही रामत्र भोग श्रृंगार आरती करने का
मनणटय ले सकता है और इसके मलए वो प्रमतवादी को २ सप्ताह के भीतर
सूमचत करेगा।

घ. रामत्र भोग श्रृंगार आरती के समय यामचकाकताट अपने
साथ एक सहयोगी रख सकता है बशते वो कमट-काण्ड व पूजा-पद्यमत का
उमचत ज्ञाता हो।

ङ. प्रमतवादी संख्या १,२ व ३ यमद मनधाटररत करना चाहें
तो मास में एक मदवस व कुछ समय मनमश्चत कर सकेंगे, मजससे
यामचकाकताट, उपासकगणों को कमट-काण्ड से सम्बमन्धत मशक्षा दे सके।
ऐसा आयोजन मंमदर पररसर में ही होगा।

च. यामचकाकताट टवैः इच्छा से रामत्र भोग श्रृंगार आरती
का सम्पादन कभी भी त्याग सकते है, उसका टवाटथ्य एक कारण हो सकता
है। ऐसा करने के पूवट वह न्यास को सूमचत करेगा।

छ. यामचकाकताट से अपेक्षा रहेगी मक वो एक वररष्ठ
अनुभवी व्यमि होने के नाते अपने उि कृत्यों में सरलता बनाये रखेगा।

१७. उपरोि मनदेशों के संदभट में मकसी मववाद की दशा में, जब
मववाद आपसी बातचीत से सुलझ न पायें तो कोई भी पक्षकार, इस
न्यायालय में पुनटमवचार यामचका दामखल करने के मलए टवतंत्र रहेगा।
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 418
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 48129 of 2017

Satyaveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
9 All. Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Niklank Kumar Jain, Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
B.P. Singh, C.S.C., Ram Prasad Dubey

Issue for Consideration
1. Validity of termination of appointment
obtained
by
using
fraudulent
educational
certificate.
2. Availability of protection provided under
Article 311 of the Constitution of India, when
the appointment was not made legally.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination - Assistant
Teacher - Principle of natural justice -
Complaint of using forged educational
certificate was made - Verification report
of university mentioned that degree as
claimed has not been issued by it -
Relevancy - No full fledged department
enquiry was held - No opportunity of
hearing was granted - Effect :
Held : An appointment obtained by fraud is non
est. Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles
and any affair tainted with fraud could not be
perpetuated or saved by application of any
equitable doctrine - Fraudulently obtained order
of appointment or approval can be 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.
[Paras 34 and 35]
Held further : Where a person secures
appointment on the basis of a forged marksheet
or certificate or appointment letter and on that
basis he or she has been inducted in
Government service then he/she becomes
beneficiary
of
illegal
and
fraudulent
appointment. Such an appointment is illegal and
void ab initio. Therefore, holding disciplinary
proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the
Constitution of India or under any disciplinary
rules
including
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar Pradesh
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules 1999, shall not arise - No opportunity is
to be granted to a person who has played fraud
while seeking appointment. [Paras 38 and 40]
(B) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 311 - Right of opportunity of
hearing - Entitlement - Appointment
obtained by using forged certificate -
Protection provided under Article 311,
extent of its availability :
Held : Protection under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India is available only to a
person who has been validly and legally
appointed to any post under the Union or a
State. The Constitutional safeguard presupposes
a lawful entry into a service. Where an
incumbent
secures
an
appointment
by
suppression of material facts or by producing
forged and/or fabricated documents such an
appointment is void ab initio and confers no
right to hold the post. [Para 43] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Special Appeal Defective No. 110 of 2014, Smt.
Parmi Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
decided on 31.01.2014; Abhishek Prabhakar
Awasthi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd &
Others, 2014 (6) ADJ 641; Writ A No. 19199 of
2023, Narsing Narain Singh vs. State Public
Service Tribunal; SLP (C) No. 8788-8789 of
2023, Sandeep Kumar v. G.B. Pant Institute,
decided
on
16.04.2024;
Special
Appeal
Defective No. 110 of 2014, Smt. Parmi Maurya
v. State of UP and Others; Riazul Hasan v. State
of UP and Others, (2024) 6 ALJ 542; Ram
Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319;
Usha Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2017
SCC Online All 6109; Nageswar Sonkesri v. State
of M.P. and another, 2020 SCC Online MP 4461;
Vijay Krishnarao Kurundkar and another v. State
of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC
834; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 (8)
SCC 748; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105; Ishwar Dayual
Sah v. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab IC 390; Rita
Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, 1988 Lab
IC 907; Union of India v. Prohlad Guha etc.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865; Special Appeal No.
26 of 2007, Vinay Kumar Shahi v. Deon D.
Upadhyay & Ors., 2010:AHC118883-DB; Special
Appeal No. 211 of 2011, Poonam Shukla v.
State of U.P. & Others, 2015 LawSuit(AII) 3864;
Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari v. State of U.P. & 2
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ors.,
2025
0
Supreme
(All)
3053;
R.
Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2004
(2) SCC 105; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran,
1995 Supp (4) SCC 100; Writ A No. 11846 of
2025, Virendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.
and 4 Ors. as decided on 19.08.2025- referred
to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 311; Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973; Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999

List of Keywords
Termination; Appointment; Political pressure;
Forged educational certificate; Departmental
proceeding;
Enquiry;
Cancellation
of
appointment; Verification; Candidature; Public
employment;
Integrity
and
honesty;
Misrepresentation;
Opportunity
of
hearing;
Constitutional
safeguard;
Suppression
of
material facts.

Case Arising From
Order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari terminating the service of the
petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Niklank Kumar Jain,
Siddharth Khare
Advs. for the Respondeents : B.P.Singh, C.S.C.,
Ram Prasad Dubey

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

1. Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prasad
Dubey, learned counsel for respondent,
Basic
Education
Officer,
and
Mr.
Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for
State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed
for following relief:

"i. Issue a writ, order of direction
in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 16.09.2017 passed by
respondent no. 2/B.S.A., District Badaun
against the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in Junior High School, Dhimarpura,
Block
Samrer,
District
Badaun
on
04.02.2011. On some complaint filed by
respondent no. 3- Chandrabhan Singh,
regarding appointment of the petitioner on
the basis of false educational certificates the
District Basic Education Officer, Badaun,
vide order dated 23.09.2016, stopped salary
of
the
petitioner
until
inquiry
being
conducted. Thereafter, by order dated
07.04.2017, respondent no. 2 issued order for
release of the petitioner's salary.

4. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
17802 of 2017 was filed by respondent no. 3
before
this
Hon'ble
Court
regarding
appointment of the petitioner being sought on
the basis of false educational certificate and
this Court by order dated 27.04.2017 by
requiring respondent no. 2 therein to summon
the original records and examine all the
educational qualification certificates of the
petitioner, and thereafter to get them verified
from institutions concerned. A direction was
also issued to take a final decision, in
accordance with law by means of a reasoned
speaking order after affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.

5. Notice was issued to the petitioner on
03.06.2017 to which a reply was submitted
on 14.06.2017 along with all educational
certificate
mentioning
therein
that
the
complainant was enemical to him due to
election dispute and therefore has made a
false complaint against him.

6. The counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner had passed
9 All. Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421
High School Examination in the year 1994
with roll number 057126, photocopy of the
mark sheet as well as high school
certificate is annexed as Annexure No. 6 to
the
instant
petition,
Intermediate
examination in the year 1996 with roll
number 029165, photocopy of the mark
sheet as well as Intermediate certificate is
annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the instant
petition, B.Com Part- 3 examination in the
year 2003 with roll number 093763 from
Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University Agra,
photocopy of duplicate statement of marks
of B.Com Part-3 as well as certificate
issued
by
Dr.
Bhimrao
Ambedkar
University Agra is annexed as Annexure
No. 8 to the instant petition B.Ed.
Examination in the year 2005 with roll
number 5176138 from Dr. Z.H. Degree
College, Etah, photocopy of the B.Ed mark
sheet is being annexed as Annexure No. 9
to the instant petition. The petitioner has
also qualified Special B.T.C. Training 2007
in the year 2010, photocopy of the
certificate of Special B.T.C. Training dated
03.11.2010 is also annexed as Annexure
No. 10 to the instant petition.

7.
Despite
the
aforesaid,
the
respondent no. 2 has proceeded to pass the
order dated 16.09.2017 terminating the
services of the petitioner while deciding the
representation of respondent no. 3 in
compliance of order of this Court, dated
27.04.2017, passed in writ petition no.
17802 of 2017. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the order impugned
is arbitrary, illegal and is based on the
complaint as made by respondent no. 3
under influence of political pressure.

8.
On
the
basis
of
telephonic
information given by the complainant to
the District Basic Education Officer that
the
verification
of
the
educational
documents
of
B.Com
and B.Ed
as
submitted by the petitioner were forged on
account of which the District Basic
education
officer
issued
letter
dated
06.09.2017 to the office of Registrar of Dr.
Bhimrao Ambedkar University Agra and
only on the basis of oral information as
given by clerk Sunil Kumar Srivastava who
after perusal of the records orally informed
that no verification was done and letter
dated 16.08.2017 was also not issued from
his office. By order dated 16.09.2017
respondent no. 2, only on the aforesaid
facts, terminated the services of the
petitioner and ordered to recover the
amount of salary from the petitioner which
is illegal.

9. The order dated 16.09.2017 has
been passed without going through the
educational certificates of the petitioner, as
produced along with reply, and without
giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, therefore, the order is arbitrary
and in violation of principles of natural
justice. The respondent no. 2 has passed the
order dated 16.09.2017 relying upon the
complaint as made by respondent no. 3
who was enmical to him and has proceeded
to
terminate
his
services
which
is
unjustified.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has not done any
forgery nor filed any forged certificate and
has placed the certificates along with the
writ petition to prove the same. Therefore
the order terminating his services is bad
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Placing reliance upon a judgement in the
case of Smt. Parmi Maurya Vs. State of
U.P. and 2 Others passed in Special
Appeal Defective No. - 110 of 2014 as
decided on 31.01.2014 submits that the
disciplinary inquiry/full fledged inquiry as
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required under law has not been conducted
prior to passing of the order dated
16.09.2017 terminating his services.

11. The counsel for the petitioner
further submits that by letter dated
16.08.2017, which finds mention in para
no. 11 of the counter affidavit, speaks about
verification of two degrees possessed by
the petitioner. Hence no forgery has been
conducted and the petitioner's services have
been terminated on a nonexistent ground.
The controversy pertaining to bachelor of
education degree awarded by Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar
University
Agra
during
academic session 2004-2005 is subject
matter of Special Leave Petition before
Supreme Court in which interim orders
have been granted, therefore, once the B.Ed
degree of the petitioner has not been
annulled till date it cannot be said that he
has committed any forgery. On the
aforesaid grounds the impugned order is
liable to be quashed.

12. He has also submitted that on
12.10.2017 the matter was heard and the
following order was passed:-

"Issue notice to the second and
third respondent.

Four weeks' time is allowed to the
respondents to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed
within two weeks thereafter.

Petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant Teacher at Junior High School,
Dhimarpura,
Block
Samrer,
District
Badaun, on 4 February 2011. On a
complaint made by the third respondent,
the B.Com. degree of the petitioner was got
verified from Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar
University, Agra, which was duly certified
by the Registrar on 16 August 2017.
Accordingly,
the
High
School
and
Intermediate mark sheets were also duly
certified by the Regional Officer of the
Board, at Meerut, by communication dated
25 May 2017. Thereafter, the impugned
order would record that the second
respondent,
District
Basic
Education
Officer, District Badaun, on telephonic
information of the third respondent i.e.
complainant,
personally
visited
the
University and on the information of the
clerk dealing with the record that the letter
dated 6 September 2017 was not issued by
the office, nor it has been signed by the
Registrar, the impugned order has been
passed. But the impugned order would not
record as to whether any enquiry was made
regarding the genuineness and validity of
the certificates pertaining to the petitioner.
The
course
adopted
by
the
second
respondent is a procedure unknown to
Government office, therefore, it creates
doubt about the reasoning in rejecting the
certificate of the petitioner merely on a
statement of a clerk.

Learned counsel for the second
respondent prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The
second respondent shall file his personal
affidavit on the date fixed, failing which, he
shall appear in person along with record.

List on 02.11.2017.

Till the next date of listing, the
effect and operation of the impugned order
dated 16 September 2017 passed by the
second
respondent
District
Basic
Education Officer, District Badaun, shall
remain stayed."

13. He submits that since then the
petitioner is working and is being paid
9 All. Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
salary. Therefore, the order impugned may
be quashed and the petitioner may be
allowed to continue to work as Assistant
Teacher and his salary may be paid
accordingly with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from the report as placed by the SIT it
can utmost be said that some tampering is
their in the records which can not be said to
be any fraud or forgery on the part of the
petitioner even otherwise no fraud has been
done and certificates of the petitioner are
genuine.

14. The written submissions were
placed, on behalf of the petitioner, before
this Court on 16.09.2025 in which
following grounds have been taken:-

" 1. A perusal of the order
impugned
itself
would
reflect
that
opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner on 14.06.2017 alone whereas the
documents relied upon by the respondent
authorities to hold the petitioner guilty of
filing forged educational certificates are
after the date opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner, i.e., 06.09.2017
when the BSA, Badaun enquired about the
certificates from the Vice Chancellor, Dr.
B.R.
Ambedkar
University
and
the
statement of Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava,
the Verification Clerk, mentioned that the
verification report dated 16.08.2017 has not
been issued from the office, aforesaid is
reflected from the first paragraph of the
second page of the order dated 16.09.2017
(page 40 to the writ petition) and averments
made in para 12 of the Counter Affidavit.

2. Even for purposes of argument
it is considered that despite the fact that the
petitioner is a regular employee, a full
fledged
departmental
inquiry
is
not
required to be undertaken against the
employee concerned if the material on the
basis of which reliance is being placed to
pass
the
order
impugned
has
been
furnished, whereas in the present case it is
undisputed that the opportunity of hearing
was granted on 14.06.2017 while reliance
is placed upon the verification undertaken
by the BSA, Badaun itself on 06.09.2017
from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University and
no notice in this regard was ever issued to
the petitioner that reliance is being placed
on the statement of Verification Clerk Sri
Sunil Kumar Srivastava on the basis of
which the order impugned is passed. Even
endorsement of Sunil Kumar has been
made on a verification report enclosed as
Annexure-4 with the Counter Affidavit.

3. Attention is drawn to order
dated 27.04.2017 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Writ Petition No. 17802 of 2017
(page 22 of the writ petition), a perusal of
which would reflect that a specific
direction was issued to complete the entire
exercise within a period of 8 weeks from
the date certified copy of this order is filed
before him. In view of the aforesaid, since
the notice was issued to the petitioner on
03.06.2017, at best, for purposes of
argument it may be assumed that the
certified
copy
of
the
order
dated
27.04.2017 reached before the respondent
authorities on 03.06.2017 even then the
BSA, Badaun was duty bound to complete
to the entire proceedings and pass final
order, at best, not later than 03.08.2017, if
the date is computed from 03.06.2017, the
date when notice was issued.

Whereas the order impugned has
been passed on 16.09.2017, i.e. after much
delay from the time stipulated in the order
dated 27.04.2017 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Writ Petition No. 17802 of 2017
which could not have been done without
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taking the liberty from the court for time
extension. It is specifically stated that no
time extension was

taken by the authority concerned
in Writ Petition No. 17802 of 2017 (the
statement is being made after going
through the order sheet of Writ-C No.
17802 of 2017, attention in this regard is
drawn to a Full Bench Judgment in the case
of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd & Others, reported
in 2014 (6) ADJ 641 as also Judgment
passed in Writ-A No. 19199 of 2023
(Narsing Narain Singh vs. State Public
Service Tribunal). True copies of Full
Bench Judgment in the case of Abhishek
Prabhakar
Awasthi
Vs.
New
India
Assurance Co. Ltd & Others, reported in
2014 (6) ADJ 641 as also Judgment passed
in Writ-A No. 19199 of 2023 (Narsing
Narain Singh vs. State Public Service
Tribunal) are annexed as Enclosure Nos. 1
& 2 respectively to this Written Argument.

4. Apart from the aforesaid, the
petitioner being a confirmed employee a
regular departmental proceedings ought to
have been undertaken by the respondent
authorities in case they felt that the
documents filed by the petitioner are
forged, whereas merely issuing a notice and
passing the order impugned dehors the
Rules could not have been done, attention
in this regard is drawn to Judgment dated
16.04.2024 passed in SLP (C) No. 87888789 of 2023 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. G.B.
Pant Institute); Judgment in Special Appeal
Defective No. 110 of 2014 (Smt. Parmi
Maurya Vs. State of UP and Others) &
Judgment in the case of Riazul Hasan vs.
State of UP and Others reported in (2024) 6
ALJ 542). True copies of Judgment dated
16.04.2024 passed in SLP (C) No. 8788-8789
of 2023 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. G.B. Pant
Institute); Judgment in Special Appeal
Defective No. 110 of 2014 (Smt. Parmi
Maurya Vs. State of UP and Others) &
Judgment in the case of Riazul Hasan vs.
State of UP and Others reported in (2024) 6
ALJ 542) are annexed as Enclosure Nos. 3, 4
& 5 respectively to this Written Argument."

15. The counsel for the petitioner has
further taken a ground that the cancellation of
appointment by the order impugned without
proper departmental inquiry is in violation of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
placing reliance upon the case of Smt. Parmi
Maurya (Supra), submits that cancellation of
appointment culminating to termination
without proper inquiry as required under law
is illegal.

17. Learned counsel for respondent
opposed the aforesaid and submits that there
is no illegality in the order impugned as the
appointment letter was initially issued
mentioning a condition that in case after
verification it is found that any false
statement has been made or forgery has been
committed the appointment shall stand
cancelled after proper inquiry. It has also
been
mentioned
that
the
aforesaid
appointment shall be subject to the orders
passed by High Court from time to time.

18. On the complaint a proper inquiry
was conducted in compliance of order
passed by this Hon'ble Court, the notice
dated 03.06.2017 was given to the
petitioner which is clear from the reply as
submitted by the petitioner on 14.06.2017
and has been placed on record by means of
Annexure 5 of the writ petition.

19.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
further
submits
that
the
9 All. Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
petitioner has placed self attested copies of
High school and Intermediate mark-sheets
and certificate. He further placed B.Com
degree bearing roll number 093763 issued
from Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University
Agra as passed from Adarsh Krishna
Mahavidyalaya Shikohabad, Firozabad. He
further placed on record the copy of B.Ed
degree alleged to have been issued by Dr.
Bhimrao
Ambedkar
University
Agra
bearing roll number 5176138 as passed
from Dr. Z.H Degree College.

20. After receiving a complaint from
respondent no. 3 a letter dated 18.04.2017
was issued to the vice chancellor Dr.
Bhimrao
Ambedkar
University
Agra
inquiring about issuance of B.Com degree
with roll number 093763 and B.Ed degree
with roll number 5776138. The Block
Education Officer, Ujhani District- Badaun
was also directed to personally visit the
university along with copy of the letter for
necessary compliance and certification
from the university and endorsement made
to this effect in the aforesaid letter proves
the
same.
A
reminder
letter
dated
25.05.2017 was issued as no verification
was received from the university. Pursuant
to the directions dated 18.04.2017 and
25.05.2017 when no information was
received from the university the Block
Education Officer went to the university on
16.06.2017 where he was informed that due
to investigation being going on by the SIT
no verification with regard to B.Ed degrees
of session 2004-2005 may be done at the
present.
However,
on
availability
of
original
records
verification
of
the
documents as required will be done.

21. A verification letter was issued
on 25.05.2017 regarding B.Com degree
of
the
petitioner.
A
letter
dated
16.08.2017 has been placed with the
counter affidavit as has been received
from the university which mentions about
the verification dated 25.05.2017 not
being done by the university. In response
to aforesaid the verification report dated
16.08.2017 was placed wherein it has
been clearly mentioned that the B.Com
degree of degree of Satya Veer Singh son
of Chunni Lal having roll number 093763
of year 2001 has not been issued.

22. The respondent no. 2 issued
letter
dated
06.09.2017
regarding
verification of report dated 25.05.2017
regarding the graduation mark-sheet with
roll number 093763 of 2003 and B.Ed
mark-sheet with roll number 5176138 of
2005 of Satya Veer Singh son of Chuuni
Lal (Petitioner) as well as a report dated
16.08.2017 which has been received in
his office. Further a request has been
made by respondent no. 2 to get the
reports verified as to whether they have
been issued from his office or not.

23. From the information as given by
the principal Adarsh Krishan Degree
College Shikohabad District Firozabad by
letter
dated
10.08.2017
to
the
complainant also it is clear that the
petitioner was not a student of the
aforesaid college as in the year 2003
students from roll number 091526 to
091805 were enrolled in the said college
whereas the petitioner has claimed to
have roll number 093762. The perusal of
the aforesaid letter dated 10.08.2017
shows that the aforesaid information has
been
provided
through
right
to
information act.

24. During the inquiry an affidavit was
given by the petitioner on 07.04.2017
stating therein that in case his educational
qualification is found to be forged his
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidature may be cancelled. Paragraph
no. 2 of the said affidavit, being relevant, is
reproduced hereinafter:-

"यह मक मुझ सपथकताट का हाई टकूल अनु-
057126 सुभाि इन्टर कामलज नौगााँव, यू.पी. बोडट इलाहाबाद,
इन्टर मीमडएट परीक्षा अनु-29165 सुभाि इन्टर कामलज
नौगााँव. यू.पी. बोडट इलाहाबाद, वी. कॉम. अनु 093763 ए के
कामलज मशकोहाबाद, डॉ वी. आर अम्बेडकर मवश्वमवद्यालय
आगरा बी. एड अनु -5176138 डॉ. जेड. एच. मडग्री कालेज
एटा बोडट डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर मवश्वमवद्यालय आगरा मेरे द्वारा
समटत कथन सत्य है यमद कोई कथन गलत पाया जाता है तो मैं
उसके मलए टवयं उत्तरदायी होउंगा। मजसके मलए मैं न्यायालय
आमद में नहीं जाउंगा।"

25. Learned counsel for the respondent
submits that both B.Com and B.Ed degrees
were found to be forged hence the
appointment sought on the basis of forged
documents has been cancelled and the
services of the petitioner have been
terminated in accordance with law. He
submits that special investigating team has
also investigated about the genuineness of
the degrees for the session 2004-2005 and
has placed its report according to which the
B.Com and B.Ed degrees of the petitioner
were found to be forged.

26. The counsel for the respondent
submits that any person who has sought
appointment on the basis of forged or by
playing fraud and during course of inquiry
has submitted an affidavit in this regard
cannot challenge the termination order on
the ground that the proper inquiry has not
been done as it is settled position of law
that no opportunity of hearing or inquiry is
required in such cases.

27. Learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the interim order granted to the
petitioner was also vacated on 02.11.2017
and the same is reproduced hereinafter:-

"Sri Chandan Agarwal has filed
Stay vacation application along with
counter affidavit and personal affidavit on
behalf of the second respondent, wherein, it
is stated that the State Government
constituted Special Investigation Team
(SIT) to investigate the genuineness of the
B.Com and B.Ed. degrees for the session
2004-05 issued by the affiliated colleges of
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra.
SIT
has
submitted
report,
wherein,
petitioner's degree of B.Com and B.Ed. has
been found forged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for and is granted two weeks' time to
file rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter.

Interim order dated 12.10.2017
stands vacated."

28. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

29. The law is well-settled on this
issue,
with
numerous
judicial
pronouncements
emphasizing
the
importance of integrity and honesty in
public
appointments.
Courts
have
consistently
held
that
fraudulent
appointments are void ab initio and must be
set aside, regardless of the consequences.

30. In the case of Ram Chandra
Singh vs. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319,
the Apex Court held that fraud as is well
known vitiates every solemn act, fraud and
justice never dwells together.

31. If an appointment is found to be
based on forgery, the authority has the right
to recall the appointment. The individual
appointed under such circumstances cannot
9 All. Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
claim any equity or rights based on their
continued service, as the appointment is
fundamentally flawed. The aforesaid has
been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Usha Singh vs. State
of U.P. and another, 2017 SCC Online
All 6109. Also the same has been held by
Madhya Pradesh High in the case of
Nageswar Sonkesri vs. State of M.P. and
another 2020 SCC Online MP 4461.

32. In the case of Vijay Krishnarao
Kurundkar and another vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC
Online SC 834, the Apex Court has
consistently held that appointments made
on the basis of forged documents are
invalid and such appointments are void ab
initio and cannot be legitimized by any
subsequent actions.

33. In the case of Jainendra Singh vs.
State of U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748, Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the fact of
appointment obtained by fraud and held in
para 29.1 to 29.10 as under :-

"29.1
Fraudulently
obtained
orders of appointment could be legitimately
treated as voidable at the option of the
employer or could be recalled by the
employer and in such cases merely because
the respondent employee has continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis
of such fraudulently obtained employment,
cannot get any equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer.

29.2 Verification of the character
and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to the post under the
State and on account of his antecedents the
appointing authority if find not desirable to
appoint a person to a disciplined force can
it be said to be unwarranted.

29.3 When appointment was
procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation
and
fraud
on
the
employer and, therefore, it would create no
equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer while resorting to termination
without holding any inquiry.

29.4
A
candidate
having
suppressed material information and/or
giving false information cannot claim right
to continue in service and the employer,
having regard to the nature of employment
as well as other aspects, has the discretion
to terminate his services.

29.5 Purpose of calling for
information regarding involvement in any
criminal case or detention or conviction is
for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents
at
the
time
of
recruitment and suppression of such
material information will have clear
bearing on the character and antecedents
of the candidate in relation to his continuity
in service.

29.6 The person who suppressed
the material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.

29.7 The standard expected of a
person intended to serve in uniformed
service is quite distinct from other services
and, therefore, any deliberate statement or
omission regarding a vital information can
be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot
be faulted.
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29.8 An employee on probation
can be discharged from service or may be
refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or
making false statement relating to his
involvement
in
the
criminal
case,
conviction or detention, even if ultimately
he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch
as such a situation would make a person
undesirable or unsuitable for the post.

29.9
An
employee
in
the
uniformed service pre-supposes a higher
level of integrity as such a person is
expected to uphold the law and on the
contrary such a service born in deceit and
subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

29.10 The authorities entrusted
with the responsibility of appointing
Constables, are under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidate to find out
whether he is suitable for the post of a
Constable and so long as the candidate has
not been acquitted in the criminal case, he
cannot be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

34. Thus, the law in case of
appointment obtained fraudulently is well
settled. Fraudulently obtained order of
appointment or approval can be 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."

35. An appointment obtained by fraud
is non est. Fraud is anathema to all
equitable principles and any affair tainted
with fraud could not be perpetuated or
saved by application of any equitable
doctrine.

36. It is well settled that if the initial
appointment
itself
was
obtained
fraudulently then no inquiry in terms of
Rules 1999 is required as is held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.
Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105, and Patna
High Court judgements in Ishwar
Dayual Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab
IC 390 and Rita Mishra Vs. Director,
Primary Education, 1988 Lab IC 907.
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid cases,
came to the following conclusion:

"12. Taking a cue from the ratio
of the decision of the Supreme Court, we
are of the opinion that if it is ultimately
found on inquiry referred earlier that the
opposite party no. 1 had practiced fraud or
deceit to obtain the appointment as already
discussed, then, it would be a case to
proceed for cancellation of appointment by
issuing a show cause notice for the said
purpose annexing the inquiry report and
material collected in such inquiry and then
considering the reply of the appointee in
this regard and taking a reasoned decision
after affording an opportunity of personal
hearing for cancellation of appointment
and not necessarily for dismissal or
removal of service, therefore, there is no
question of any inquiry to be held in terms
of Rules, 1999 as has already been held in
9 All. Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429
the aforesaid decision of the Supreme
Court.

13.
This
will
be
sufficient
observance of principles of natural justice.
It may also be pointed out that an employee
of Basic Education Department does not
have the benefit of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India as Article 311 of the
Constitution of India would not apply,
however, the relevant rules for disciplinary
proceedings for imposition of major
punishment such as removal, dismissal etc.
would apply, but, for the reasons aforesaid,
those will also not apply if on a fact finding
inquiry it is found that the appointment was
obtained by fraud, as already observed
hereinabove and thereafter the aforesaid
procedure is followed."

37. In the case of Union of India Vs.
Prohlad Guha etc., 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 1865 it has been clearly held by the
Apex Court that in case the employment
has been obtained based on fraudulent
documents on concealing material facts, the
beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek that
proper procedure as prescribed under Rule
1999 must be followed.

38. Thus, where a person secures
appointment on the basis of a forged
marksheet or certificate or appointment
letter and on that basis he or she has been
inducted in Government service then
he/she becomes beneficiary of illegal and
fraudulent
appointment.
Such
an
appointment is illegal and void ab initio.
Therefore,
holding
disciplinary
proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of
the Constitution of India or under any
disciplinary rules including the Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules,
1973 or the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
1999, shall not arise.

39. A similar type of controversy has
also been dealt in Special Appeal No. 26
of 2007 (Vinay Kumar Shahi Vs. Deon
D. Upadhyay & Ors.) Neutral Citation
No.-2010:AHC118883-DB
and
in
Special Appeal No. - 211 of 2011
(Poonam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. &
Others) 2015 LawSuit(AII) 3864.

40. As regards the submission of
learned counsel for petitioner that no
opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner
after
inquiring
about
the
certificates from the Vice-Chancellor of
the
concerned
University
and
the
statement of the clerk, it is settled law
that no opportunity is to be granted to a
person who has played fraud while
seeking appointment.