# Shiv Bachan Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1252 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-09 - **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 220 of 2011 - **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Mrs. Garima Prashad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-bachan-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54387 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2026) 4 ILRA 1252 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J. Special Appeal Defective No. 220 of 2011 Shiv Bachan Ram ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Applicability of principle of natural justice in the matter of cancellation of appointment obtained on the strength of a forged mark-sheet. (2) Relevancy of verification reports in the matter of cancellation of an appointment obtained on the basis of a fictitious document. (3) High Court's power to impose exemplary costs. Headnotes (A) Service law - Cancellation of appointment - Assistant Teacher - Forged mark-sheet was used to obtain the appointment - On the direction of writ court, the Secretary also found marksheet forged - Single Judge dismissed writ petition - Validity challenged - Ground was taken that the learned Single Judge relied upon the verification report without granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the same - Further pleaded that no proper inquiry into the alleged forgery was conducted and that the report could not have been relied upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and action taken was violative of the principles of natural justice - Permissibility - Relevancy of verification reports felt into consideration: Held: The principles of natural justice are intended to ensure fairness and cannot be invoked to protect a claim founded on a forged document - The contention that the learned Single Judge recorded findings on forgery without a regular trial also cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The writ court was not trying the appellant for an offence. It was examining whether the employer was justified in cancelling an appointment obtained on the basis of a document which stood verified to be fictitious. For that purpose, the verification reports from the competent authorities were sufficient material - It is trite that fraud vitiates every solemn act. An appointment secured on the basis of a forged educational certificate does not confer any enforceable right upon the appointee, and no equity can be claimed on the basis of long continuance in service. [Para 17, 18 and 19] B. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch. XXII, Rule 9 - Cost - Exemplary cost - High Court's power to impose: (E-1) Held: The appellant not only questioned the termination but persisted in asserting the genuineness of the very same mark-sheet and even brought on record a certificate in support thereof, which also failed to withstand verification. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in imposing exemplary costs so as to deter abuse of the process of Court. The amount imposed also cannot be said to be so disproportionate as to warrant appellate interference. [Para 20] List of Keywords Termination, Exemplary cost, Assistant teacher, Verification, Mark-sheet found forged, Opportunity of hearing, Principle of natural justice, False certificate, Misconduct, Departmental enquiry, Fictitious educational 4 All. Shiv Bachan Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1253 certificate, Misrepresentation, Forged documents, Fraud, Solemn act, Procurement of public employment, Abuse of process of law, Perversity, Arbitrariness, Jurisdictional error. Case Arising From Judgment and order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34650 of 2010. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Hare Ram Pandey, S.K. Singh Paliwal, Shishir Kumar Dwivedi. Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Garima Prashad, J.) Civil Misc. Delay Contonation Application No.64342 of 2011 1. There is delay of 66 days in filing the present special appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 3. The delay condonation application is allowed. Appeal 4. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34650 of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner?appellant was dismissed, and the order of termination passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar was upheld, and further directions were issued for lodging an FIR against the petitioner as well as for recovery, along with imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 31.03.1995 by the District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar at Primary Pathshala, Balua. The petitioner claimed to have passed High School, Intermediate and B.T.C. examinations and to have submitted all relevant testimonials at the time of selection. On 06.12.2005, the petitioner was required to produce original mark-sheets and certificates, which were submitted. However, on 27.03.2010, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that, upon verification from the Principal of P.N. Intermediate College, Mardah, Ghazipur, it was found that Roll No. 335639, as mentioned in the petitioner's Intermediate mark-sheet, had not been allotted to any candidate, and thus the mark-sheet appeared to be fictitious. The petitioner was also called upon to explain as to why an FIR be not lodged against him. 6. When the petitioner failed to appear, a further notice dated 16.04.2010 was issued. The petitioner thereafter responded on 22.04.2010, enclosing a certificate purportedly issued by the Principal stating that he had passed the Intermediate examination in 1983 with the same roll 1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES number. Subsequently, by order dated 10.05.2010, the petitioner?s appointment was cancelled with retrospective effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant filed a supplementary affidavit annexing another copy of the Intermediate mark-sheet. Upon directions of the learned Single Judge, the said mark-sheet was verified, and the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad, vide report dated 08.11.2010, categorically stated that in the year 1983, no candidate in P.N. Intermediate College, Mardah, Ghazipur was allotted Roll No. 335639, and thus the mark-sheet relied upon by the petitioner was found forged. 8. The learned Single Judge recorded that learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute these facts and concluded that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of a forged mark-sheet. In such circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- as a deterrent, the termination order was upheld, and a direction was issued to lodge an FIR against the petitioner in terms of the order dated 10.05.2010. 9. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed, primarily on the ground that the learned Single Judge relied upon the verification report without granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the same. It is further submitted that no proper inquiry into the alleged forgery was conducted and that the report could not have been relied upon without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that the petitioner neither committed forgery nor misused any document, and that the action taken is violative of the principles of natural justice. The imposition of exemplary costs is also challenged on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to explain his conduct. 10. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction by directing lodging of an FIR against the petitioner and ordering recovery of salary received by him as an Assistant Teacher. It is contended that the impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned, and therefore liable to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the appellant was rightly terminated by order dated 10.05.2010, as the Intermediate mark-sheet relied upon by him was found to be forged and fictitious. It is submitted that no such roll number was ever allotted to any student in the concerned institution. It is further contended that the appellant has failed to establish his bona fides and has, in fact, produced a false certificate before the Court. The District Basic Education Officer, therefore, rightly directed lodging of an FIR and recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. From the record, it is evident that the appellant had obtained appointment as Assistant Teacher on the strength of educational qualifications which included the Intermediate examination. A specific doubt having arisen with regard to the genuineness of the Intermediate mark-sheet submitted by him, the matter was verified from the concerned institution as well as from the 4 All. Shiv Bachan Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1255 competent examining authority. The consistent position emerging from such verification is that Roll No. 335639, which forms the basis of the appellant?s claim, was not allotted to any candidate of P.N. Intermediate College, Mardah, Ghazipur in the relevant year. The appellant, despite opportunity, failed to produce any credible material of unimpeachable character to dislodge the said finding. 14. The submission that no inquiry was held in accordance with law also does not merit acceptance. The present is not a case of misconduct committed during service requiring a fullfledged departmental inquiry into disputed conduct in the ordinary course. The very foundation of appointment was under scrutiny. Where an appointment is obtained on the basis of a forged or fictitious educational certificate, the employer is entitled to verify the authenticity of such document, and once the document is found to be false, the appointment itself becomes voidable at the instance of the employer, being founded on misrepresentation and fraud. In such a case, verification of the certificate by the competent authority is sufficient, and the appellant was afforded an opportunity to explain. 15. The record further shows that a show cause notice dated 27.03.2010 was issued to the appellant specifically informing him that the Intermediate mark-sheet produced by him was found doubtful and fictitious, and he was also called upon to explain why an FIR be not lodged. When he did not initially appear, a further notice dated 16.04.2010 was issued. The appellant thereafter responded on 22.04.2010 and sought to support his stand by filing a certificate allegedly issued by the Principal. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of cancellation was passed behind his back or without notice. Adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellant to explain the genuineness of the document relied upon by him. 16. Even before the learned Single Judge, the appellant was given further latitude, inasmuch as the mark-sheet annexed along with the supplementary affidavit was got independently verified pursuant to directions of the Court. The report submitted by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad clearly negated the appellant?s claim. The learned Single Judge has recorded that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to dispute the said factual position. In such circumstances, the contention that the report was relied upon without opportunity is not borne out from the record. 17. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is, therefore, without merit. The principles of natural justice are intended to ensure fairness and cannot be invoked to protect a claim founded on a forged document. In the present case, the appellant was informed of the allegation and was given an opportunity to respond. The matter was also independently verified from the competent statutory authority. In such circumstances, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. Mere invocation of natural justice, in the absence of any credible rebuttal to the verification report, does not advance the case of the appellant. 18. The contention that the learned Single Judge recorded findings on forgery without a regular trial also cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The writ court was not trying the appellant for an offence. It was examining whether the employer was justified in cancelling an appointment obtained on the basis of a document which stood verified to be fictitious. For that 1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES purpose, the verification reports from the competent authorities were sufficient material. The learned Single Judge was fully justified in testing the validity of the appellant?s continuance in service on the basis of such record. 19. It is trite that fraud vitiates every solemn act. An appointment secured on the basis of a forged educational certificate does not confer any enforceable right upon the appointee, and no equity can be claimed on the basis of long continuance in service. Length of service cannot sanitize an entry which is tainted at inception. Once the foundational qualification itself is found to be supported by a forged mark-sheet, the order cancelling the appointment cannot be faulted. 20. Insofar as the challenge to the imposition of exemplary costs is concerned, we find that the appellant not only questioned the termination but persisted in asserting the genuineness of the very same mark-sheet and even brought on record a certificate in support thereof, which also failed to withstand verification. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in imposing exemplary costs so as to deter abuse of the process of Court. The amount imposed also cannot be said to be so disproportionate as to warrant appellate interference. 21. As regards the direction for lodging of FIR, we find that once the competent authority had already, while passing the order dated 10.05.2010, contemplated such action on the basis of use of a forged educational certificate for obtaining public employment, the learned Single Judge merely directed consequential action in light of the facts which had emerged on record. No exception can be taken to such direction, particularly where the allegation pertains to procurement of public employment on the basis of a forged public document. 22. Similarly, the contention that the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction in directing recovery also does not persuade us to interfere. If salary has been drawn on the strength of an appointment obtained by fraud, the matter of recovery would remain open to be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law. Mere issuance of such direction does not render the judgment unsustainable, particularly when the appellant's very entry into service has been found to be founded on a forged document. 23. We are thus of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge committed no error in upholding the order dated 10.05.2010 cancelling the appellant?s appointment. The findings recorded are based on verification from the competent authorities, and the appellant has failed to demonstrate either any factual error in such findings or any legal infirmity in the procedure adopted. 24. The order under appeal does not suffer from perversity, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, or any jurisdictional error warranting interference in intra-court appeal. 25. The special appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 26. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 4 All. Prem Kumar Singh Vs. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors. 1257 ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1257 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. Special Appeal No. 367 of 2026 Prem Kumar Singh ...Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Maintainability of Special Appeal against an order, whereby the contempt application was dismissed holding that no case for contempt is made out. (2) Applicability of judgment passed in Tanseem Fatima's case, which was already declared as per incuriam. Headnotes (A) Practice and procedure - Special Appeal - Maintainability - Contempt application was dismissed holding that no case for contempt is made out - Validity challenged - Applicability of Tasneem Fatima's case, Subhash Chandra's case and Alok Kumar Yadav's case felt into consideration: (E-1) Held: Intra court special appeals in contempt cases are maintainable only when the contempt court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute. In the instant matter the contempt court vide order impugned has neither touched the merit nor has decided any issue and it has not made any direction relating to the merits of the disputes between the parties. Hence, we find that the contempt court has not overstepped its jurisdiction - No interference is required in the instant intra court appeal - The judgment in Tasneem Fatima's case being per incuriam is not applicable in the instant matter and the judgments in Subhash Chandra's case and Alok Kumar Yadav's case are holding the field. [Para 8] Case Law Cited Special Appeal no. 83 of 2025, Tasneem Fatima vs. Sri Amit Mohan Mishra decided on 20.02.2025, 2025: AHC-LKO:11415-DB; Subhash Chandra vs. Srikant Goswami and others, 2024 SCC OnLine All 5435; Alok Kumar Yadav vs. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, 2025 (172) ALR 489; Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399 - referred to. List of Acts Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5. List of Keywords Public Interest Litigation, Maintainability of intra court appeal, Contempt Application, Contempt proceeding, Per incuriam, Oversteps its jurisdiction, Merits of the dispute, Direction. Case Arising From Judgment and order dated 12.3.2026 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1591 of 2026; Prem Kumar Singh v. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors.