# Veena Menon v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 752
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15328 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veena-menon-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54474
- **Pages:** 29

## Text

_Characters 0–39,921 of 98,389. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39921 for what follows._

752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 752
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 15328 of 2025

Veena Menon ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of not providing opportunity of hearing before passing the orders of withholding the salary of the
petitioner, who obtained the appointment relying upon a forged and fabricated document.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Withholding of salary - Assistant Teacher - Petitioner got appointment in the
year 1989 - On asking to upload the documents of educational qualification on the Portal, it
came into light that the petitioner's result of High School was showing as 'withheld' on the
ground of non-submission of Transfer Certificate of Class IX - Petitioner's application for
issuance of Class X marksheet and certificate was rejected on the ground of alleged nonsubmission of documents - Consequently, the salary was also withheld subject to production of
original High School Marksheet and Certificate - Validity challenged - In enquiry, it came into
light that the petitioner had produced a handwritten High School marksheet and a fabricated
Transfer Certificate, on the strength of which, she secured admission in Class XII - Effect - Plea
of violation of principle of natural justice was taken - Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: The petitioner has sought to rely upon a forged and fabricated document, thereby rendering her claim
wholly untenable - Upon a comprehensive inquiry into the matter, it was conclusively found that the
petitioner had indulged in acts of forgery in securing appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher - The
conclusions drawn in the inquiry report leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner had systematically relied
upon forged and fictitious documents to secure academic progression and consequential benefits, thereby
vitiating the very foundation of her claim. [Para 55, 63 and 72]
Further held: Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. In cases where an action is founded upon fraud, the
requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is considerably diluted, and in appropriate cases, even
dispensed with - Rejection of the petitioner's claim for issuance of the High School certificate and marksheet
cannot be faulted. Consequential actions, including the withholding of salary, have also been initiated by the
competent authority in accordance with law - The impugned orders cannot be faulted on the ground urged by
the petitioner, and the challenge so raised is devoid of merit. [Para 74, 77 and 113]

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334; Writ C No. 19955 of 2017, Markandey Kumar Yadav vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.; W. A. No. 3075 of 2021, All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society vs. State of
Tamil Nadu; Writ A No. 13670 of 2020, Manjul Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 24.08.2021;
Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748; Writ A No. 19634 of 2025, Garima Singh vs. State of U.P.
& Others; Writ A No. 11846 of 2025, Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on
19.08.2025; Writ A No. 20140 of 2023, Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on
4 All. Veena Menon Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
753
25.08.2025; Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319: JT 2005(11) SC 439 -
referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Recognized Basic Schools Recruitment (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment of Conditions of Services of
Teachers) Rules, 1978; UP Board of Secondary Education Rules, 1983-88 - Chapter XII, Regulation 10.1;
Gazette Notification of 1984.

List of Keywords
Appointment, Withheld, Appointment, High School marksheet and certificate, Handwritten marksheet,
Transfer application, Enquiry, Opportunity of hearing, Non-submission of documents, Principle of natural
justice, Arbitrary, Recruitment, Withholding of salary, Irregularity, Discrepancy, Successful, Presumption of
success, Illegality, Objection, Defects, Procedural lapse, Documentation issue, Substantive right, Fraud,
Deliberate
misrepresentation,
Verification,
Communication,
Punitive
action,
Premature,
Squarely
impermissible, Hardship, Retirement, No fault, Pension, Monetary benefits, Forged/false affidavit, Sympathy,
Void ab initio, Technical impediments, Verification report, Veracity, Credibility, Reconsideration, Substantiation
of the finding, Finding of fact, Untenable, Adjudication, Unjustified, Eligibility condition, Unsustainable, Fraud,
Solemn act, Misconceived, Removal of procedural impediments, Precedents, Legitimacy, Formal order,
Cancellation.

Case Arising From
Impugned orders dated 26.07.2025 and 13.08.2025 passed by the Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Meerut Region, and the consequential orders dated 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 passed by the
District Basic Education Officer, Meerut.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Himanshu Bansal, Shivam Yadav.
Advs. for the Respondents: Shailendra Singh (SC).

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

1. Mr. Himanshu Bansal, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.
Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appeared for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition challenging orders dated 26.07.2025,
13.08.2025 passed by the Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut Region and
the consequential orders dated 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 passed by the District Basic Education
Officer, Meerut. The petitioner has further prayed for the direction upon the respondents to
forthwith release the withheld salary of the petitioner along with all consequential benefits
including arrears and continuity of service. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be
directed to issue High School Marksheet and Passing Certificate of the petitioner in terms of the
Gazette Notification of 1984 wherein the petitioner's name is recorded at Serial No. 725.

3. Placing brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was appointed way back in the year 1989 as an Assistant Teacher in Chruch City Junior High
School, Thatherwada, District Meerut and served up to the satisfaction of her superiors and there
has been no complaint against her. At the time of appointment the educational documents
submitted by her including High School Marksheet of the year 1984 (Roll no. 1233725) issued by
St. Thomas Girls Inter College, Meerut were duly verified. Till date mark sheets of class 10th and
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
class 12th as well as TET of the petitioner were not disputed and they still hold good ground in the
eyes of law.

4. The controversy arose when the petitioner had to upload all details of her employment along
with the documents of educational qualifications on Manav Sampada Portal as per requirements of
the respondents. While doing so, the petitioner realized that Passing Certificate of High School was
also required to be uploaded. The aforesaid certificate was withheld by Madhyamik Shiksha Board
in the year 1984 due to non-submission of some papers and there was no requirement of any such
certificate, therefore, the petitioner did not apply for Class-X passing certificate, however the
handwritten marksheet of class 10th duly certified by the Principal of the School from where she
had completed her Class-X was made available to her. Thus for uploading Class-X certificate as
required by the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad,
Regional Office, Meerut requesting for issuance of marksheet and passing certificate of High
School bearing roll no. 1233725 from St. Thomas Girls Inter College, Meerut, by means of moving
an application dated 20.03.2024. On 30.08.2024 the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Meerut Region, informed the petitioner that as the result of High School Examination
1984 (Roll No. 1233725) was shown as 'withheld' on the ground that entry of her name in the
admission register and Transfer Certificate of Class-IX had not been submitted by the institution. It
was further mentioned that in terms of resolution of the Examination Committee dated 23.10.2019,
the results of such candidates would remain withheld unless the requisite documents were furnished
within two years and thereafter will be released on the orders of Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad. The petitioner had completed Class-X education in the year 1984 bearing Roll No.
1233725 and due to non deposit of her transfer certificate of Class-IX, the mark sheet/ passing
certificate was not released. However on the basis of Class-X marksheet issued by the Principal
which was duly certified, the petitioner passed her Class-XI and XII examinations. The petitioner
on the advice of Regional Secretary, furnished all details by filing an affidavit dated 13.05.2024
along with notarized affidavit mentioning therein that her maiden name was Veena Breo and her
name is Smt. Veena Menon, both are one and the same person.

5. The petitioner also deposited her Transfer Certificate and the Gazette issued by the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, wherein name of the petitioner is surfaced at serial no. 725
indicating she has been declared passed with third division.

6. On the aforesaid, instead of issuing High School Certificate and marksheet, the Parishad
started enquiring into the marksheet issued by the Principal of the School which was in accordance
with the gazette notification as issued by the Parishad, wherein petitioner's name is surfaced at
serial no. 725 and also started enquiry of Class-VIII Transfer Certificate which was produced by
the petitioner and the same relates to District Etah.

7. Relying upon the aforesaid enquiry, without affording any opportunity of hearing or giving
any notice to the petitioner, the Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut Region
vide order dated 26.07.2025 rejected petitioner's application requesting for issuance of Class-X
marksheet and certificate, solely on the ground of alleged non-submission of documents treating
the petitioner's case not to be genuine.
4 All. Veena Menon Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
755

8. The petitioner who has submitted her explanation on 28.07.2025 before the Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad in response to the allegations mentioned in the order dated 26.07.2025, the same
has not been considered. Thereafter an order dated 13.08.2025 was passed by the Additional
Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut Region, without considering the fact that the
Transfer Certificate which has been alleged by the respondents to be submitted by the petitioner, in
fact has not been submitted by her. The petitioner has never attended the alleged school situated in
District Etah. The aforesaid order dated 13.08.2025 was not given to the petitioner and also to the
Department of the Basic Education, however, the said order was communicated to the petitioner on
25.08.2025.

9. The aforesaid order speaks about three documents produced before the Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad on 24.05.2025; (i) Affidavit dated 13.05.2025; (ii) Transfer Certificate of Class-VIII
issued by Junior High School, Rustamgarh, District Etah; (iii) Handwritten marksheet issued by the
Principal, St. Thomas Girls Inter College, Meerut.

10. On the aforesaid documents, an enquiry has been conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha
Board. Aforesaid order though mentions the handwritten marksheet as produced by the petitioner,
has not been issued by the Principal of the School as he has denied issuance of the same. However,
it does not mention about the Gazette notification which clearly details the name of the petitioner
which is shown at Sl. No. 725. In the aforesaid order the Transfer Certificate of Class-VIII as
produced before the authorities relates to District Etah and the same has not been found to be
forged during the enquiry.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no occasion for the
petitioner to go to District Etah for attending school as she is born and brought up in District
Meerut. She has been educated in District Meerut up to Class-XII and has also got her TET
certificate from Bihar.

12. Subsequent to the order dated 26.07.2025 the District Basic Education officer has passed
order dated 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025. By order dated 19.08.2025 the District Basic Education
Officer has withheld the due salary of the petitioner granting three month's time to produce original
High School Marksheet and Certificate. By order dated 20.08.2025 the District Basic Education
Officer has modified the order dated 19.08.2025 reducing three month's time to fifteen days for
production of the original High School Marksheet and Certificate. Thus, the impugned orders dated
26.07.2025, 13.08.2025, 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 are under challenge in this writ petition.

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 26.07.2025
passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting application of the petitioner requesting for issuance of Class-X
Marksheet and Certificate is arbitrary as instead of issuing the certificate on the basis of Gazette
notification wherein the petitioner's name finds place at Sl. No. 725 on the basis of which the
Principal of St. Thomas Girls Inter College, Meerut has issued a handwritten marksheet and the
enquiry has been conducted without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

14. The aforesaid has been done, after the petitioner has put in nearly 35 years of service as
Assistant Teacher ignoring the fact that the said handwritten marksheet as issued by the Principal of
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the said institution on the basis of gazette notification as issued by the board was placed before the
authorities at the time of appointment as Assistant Teacher and same has been duly verified.

15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that another illegality has been
committed by the respondents while getting Class-VIII transfer certificate issued from District Etah
inquired, which infact has never been produced by the petitioner. He further submits that even
otherwise the Class-VIII certificate does not have any bearing on Class-X educational certificate
which the petitioner has duly passed. Relying upon the order dated 26.07.2025, the District Basic
Education Officer has passed orders dated 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 without further enquiring
upon the reality about Class-VIII certificate and the fact that the petitioner had already passed
Class-X from the school, Principal of which had issued a handwritten marksheet on the basis of
Gazette notification, that too, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submits that impugned orders have been passed by
completely opening new front when the petitioner was required to upload educational documents
including High School marksheet on Manav Sampada Portal by reopening the case of the petitioner
after 35 years of service about High School marksheet and enquiring such Class-VIII Transfer
Certificate from District Etah which has never been produced by the petitioner.

17. The orders impugned have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as
no opportunity of hearing has ever been afforded to the petitioner. The authorities have passed the
impugned orders arbitrarily ignoring the gazette notification of the year 1984 wherein petitioners
name finds place at Sl. No. 725 declaring her to have passed, instead emphasizing upon an alleged
Class-VIII Transfer Certificate which has no bearing upon the petitioner's Class-X result.

18. While passing the orders impugned, the authorities have not considered the fact that as per
settled position of law, Class-X gazette and marksheet are the only determinative records and the
Transfer Certificate of Class-VIII issued from District Etah cannot have any bearing over Class-X
marksheet and the said marksheet cannot be doubted or disputed on the basis of such alleged
Transfer Certificate of Class-VIII.

19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, further contends that the orders passed by the District
Basic Education Officer are totally based upon the order as passed by the Additional Secretary,
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, without independent application of mind. Proper disciplinary
proceedings have not been initiated prior to passing of the orders impugned, therefore, the same is
arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law. The respondents have also ignored the fact that Writ-A No.
9228 of 2013 was filed challenging the order passed by the Director of Education, whereby the
representation for payment of salary was rejected on the ground that they did not fulfill minimum
eligibility qualification as per U.P. Recognized Basic Schools Recruitment (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment of Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 19781, which was disposed of by order
dated 17.09.2019, wherein also High School marksheet of the petitioner was not disputed.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that withholding the due salary of the petitioner
and modification of the order dated 19.08.2025 reducing three month's time to fifteen days for
4 All. Veena Menon Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757
production of the original High School Marksheet and Certificate clearly demonstrates the malafide
intention and colourable exercise of powers by the authorities concerned.

21. In the written submissions as submitted on 09.03.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed the facts of the case, which are thus:

a) The petitioner passed the High School Examination in the year 1984, conducted by the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., bearing Roll No. 1233725, and her name is duly published in
the official Gazette Notification at Serial No. 725.

b) Petitioner's result has been recorded as "withheld (CP category)", therefore, she approached
the concerned institution, namely St. Thomas Girls Inter College, Meerut, from where she had
appeared in the High School Examination. Upon verification of the Gazette Notification and the
school records, the Principal In-Charge of the institution issued marksheet/certificate to the
petitioner, certifying that she had appeared in the High School Examination in the year 1984 and
had been declared successful therein. Such handwritten certificates were issued by the institution at
the relevant point of time on the basis of the Gazette publication to enable students to pursue
further studies when the formal marksheet had not been issued by the Board due to procedural
reasons. On the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner thereafter pursued her further
education, including Intermediate (Class XII) and other requisite qualifications, and after
appointment as Assistant Teacher in the year 1989 all documents were duly verified by the
authorities concerned.

c) Surprisingly, after 35 years of service, when education documents were to be uploaded on
Manav Sampada Portal, a story has been built up regarding submission of forged Class-VIII
certificate and the fact that the original marksheet and passing certificate has not been uploaded.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two main issues for consideration while
challenging the orders impugned:

i. Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to issue the High School marksheet
and passing certificate to the petitioner despite the fact that her name finds place in the official
Gazette Notification of the year 1984 issued by the Board, declaring her to have passed the High
School Examination?

ii. Whether an alleged irregularity or discrepancy in a Class-VIII Transfer Certificate can
legally invalidate or be used as a ground to deny issuance of a High School (Class-X) marksheet
and certificate by the Board, particularly when the petitioner had duly appeared in the examination,
was declared successful in the official Gazette, and the said qualification was accepted by the
authorities at the time of appointment decades earlier?

23. While justifying his case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name
appears in the official Gazette Notification of the Board at Serial No. 725, declaring her to have
passed the High School Examination, however, the respondents have ignored this official record
and instead relied upon extraneous considerations such as an alleged Class-8 transfer certificate. It
is well settled that entries in official records maintained by statutory authorities carry presumption
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of correctness. Therefore, the refusal to issue the marksheet despite the Gazette publication is
arbitrary and perverse.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not only passed
the High School Examination but has also successfully completed the Intermediate (Class XII)
Examination (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition), and both the said certificates have been duly
issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner thereafter pursued
further studies and obtained the Basic Training Certificate (BTC), which is the prescribed training
qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education Department. It
is pertinent to submit that all these educational qualifications were acquired on the strength of the
petitioner's High School and Intermediate certificates issued by the said Board. The petitioner's
eligibility for appointment as Assistant Teacher was duly assessed and accepted by the competent
authorities on the basis of these qualifications at the time of appointment in the year 1989. Thus,
the petitioner's entire educational progression, including completion of Intermediate and the BTC
training course, stands recognized by the competent authorities, and the same clearly demonstrates
that the petitioner's qualifications have consistently been accepted by the respondents throughout
her service career.

25. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming, without
admitting, that there existed any discrepancy relating to Class 8th Transfer Certificate the
petitioner's educational record, the same could at best be construed as a procedural irregularity and
not an illegality so as to justify the drastic action taken by the respondents. The petitioner's result in
the High School Examination of the year 1984 stands duly published in the official Gazette issued
by the Board, which constitutes an authentic public record maintained in the ordinary course of
official business.

26. He next contends that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year
1989 and her educational qualification was duly accepted and verified by the competent authorities
at the time of her appointment. The petitioner has thereafter rendered more than three decades of
continuous and satisfactory service without any complaint or adverse remark. At no point during
this long period did the respondents raise any objection regarding the petitioner's educational
qualification. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot now be permitted to question the same
at the fag end of the petitioner's career.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is a settled principle of service
jurisprudence that where an employee has served the department for long years and the alleged
defect pertains merely to a procedural lapse or documentation issue, the same cannot be treated as
an illegality so as to invalidate the employee's service or deprive her of salary and other service
benefits. Courts have consistently held that minor procedural irregularities cannot defeat
substantive rights, particularly when the employee has not obtained the benefit by practicing fraud
or deliberate misrepresentation.

28. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher only
after due verification of her educational qualifications by the competent authorities of the
department. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had produced all the requisite certificates
4 All. Veena Menon Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
759
and documents, which were duly scrutinized and accepted by the concerned authorities. Thereafter,
on the basis of the said qualifications, the petitioner continued in service for several decades and
also pursued further studies required for her professional eligibility. In such circumstances, it is a
settled principle of law that once the competent authorities themselves have verified and accepted
the qualifications of an employee and allowed her to continue in service for a long period of time,
the clock cannot now be rewound to reopen and question the very basis of such verification after
the lapse of several decades. The respondents, having themselves undertaken the process of
verification and having permitted the petitioner to serve the department for more than three
decades, are now estopped from reopening the issue at this belated stage to the prejudice of the
petitioner.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is an undisputed and admitted
position on record that the petitioner had appeared in the High School (Class X) Examination
conducted by the Board in the year 1984. It is further not in dispute that on the strength of the said
examination, the petitioner was permitted to pursue her further studies and thereafter appeared in
the Intermediate (Class XII) Examination conducted by the competent Board. The petitioner
successfully completed and passed the said Intermediate Examination as well. The fact that the
petitioner was allowed to continue her academic course and was permitted to appear in the
Intermediate Examination itself clearly establishes that the petitioner's High School qualification
was duly recognized and accepted by the authorities at the relevant time. The subsequent
educational progression of the petitioner, culminating in passing both the High School and
Intermediate examinations, therefore stands as a consistent and undisputed factual position on
record, which further demonstrates that the petitioner's educational credentials were never
questioned by the authorities for several years.

30. He further argues that the present writ petition cannot be said to be premature in any
manner whatsoever. The requirement of submission of the High School (Class-10) marksheet has
been specifically insisted upon by the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut, and
the failure to produce the said marksheet has already resulted in adverse and coercive consequences
against the petitioner. In fact, acting upon the communication issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad refusing issuance of the marksheet, the District Basic Education Officer has proceeded to
pass consequential orders whereby the salary of the petitioner has been withheld and directions
have been issued requiring the petitioner to produce the said certificate within a stipulated period.
Thus, the impugned actions have already culminated in civil consequences affecting the petitioner's
service and livelihood. In such circumstances, the cause of action has clearly arisen and the
petitioner cannot be compelled to wait for further punitive action to be taken. The present writ
petition has therefore been filed to challenge the impugned orders and the consequential action of
withholding the petitioner's salary, and the same is fully maintainable in law and cannot be termed
as premature.

31. To strengthen his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action
of the respondents in withholding the petitioner's salary is squarely impermissible in law in view of
the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Court has held that recovery of excess payments is not
sustainable where the employee is not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation and where recovery
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would cause undue hardship and the recovery is impermissible when excess payments have
continued for long periods, and when the employee has retired or is nearing retirement. The
petitioner, having rendered more than three decades of unblemished service and being close to
retirement, cannot be subjected to the harsh consequence of salary deprivation for no fault of her
own.

32. He has also submitted that in an identical matter relating to non-issuance of a High School
certificate, this Court in the case of Markandey Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors., has held
that once a candidate had been issued a marksheet, permitted to pursue higher studies, and had
qualified subsequent examinations, the Board was required to examine its own records and rectify
the anomaly rather than deny certification. The Court specifically directed the Board to conduct an
enquiry to ascertain how the candidate was allowed to appear in subsequent examinations despite
alleged discrepancies (Order dated 18.07.2017), and ultimately the certificate was directed to be
issued, rendering the petition infructuous (Order dated 11.10.2017). The present case stands on a
stronger footing as the petitioner's educational progression and long service have been consistently
recognized by the authorities.

33. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the insistence on production of a
Transfer Certificate and consequential denial of educational benefits is legally unsustainable. The
Madras High Court in the case of All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, has categorically held that Transfer Certificate is not a mandatory document for
admission and cannot be used as a tool to obstruct a child's educational rights. The Court further
held that procedural requirements cannot override the child's right to education and schools cannot
impose conditions that defeat the object of the Right to Education Act. The ratio squarely applies in
the present case where technical objections relating to records are being used to deprive the
petitioner of lawful service and salary benefits.

34. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that technical or procedural
objections relating to educational records cannot be used to defeat substantive rights. The Madras
High Court in All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society (supra), has held that
procedural requirements such as insistence on Transfer Certificate cannot override the fundamental
right to education and cannot be used as a ground to deny educational benefits. The Court has
further ruled that additional procedural conditions which defeat statutory rights are impermissible.
The same principle squarely applies here, where alleged discrepancies in historical records are
being used to deny issuance of marksheet and to withhold salary, despite the petitioner's
qualifications having been accepted and recognized throughout her long service.

35. Placing the aforementioned submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the impugned orders are unsustainable, thus the same may be quashed by this Court.

36. Learned Counsel for the State has placed his submissions in the following manner:

a. The petitioner first time submitted application on 20.03.2024 more than after 40 years for
issuing the mark sheet and certificate of High School Examination Year 1984, Roll No. 1233725
along with affidavit, certified photocopy of handwritten mark sheet of High School Personal
4 All. Veena Menon Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
Examination Year 1984, Dainik Jagran Meerut edition of 21.02.2024, mentioning that her mark
sheet/certificate of High School Year 1984 Roll No.-1233725 is actually lost.

b. The High School Examination Tabulation Chart of the 1984, petitioner was found at Serial
No.1233725 result was withheld from the CP list due to non-submitting the relevant documents in
the office of Respondent No. 2 by the petitioner.

c. Respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner through office letter dated 30.03.2024 to provide
evidence regarding the process and eligibility related to declaration of the result of High School
Examination year-1984, Serial No.1233725 from the CP list.

d. The petitioner submitted an affidavit on 20.03.2024 annexed the Class 8th forged and
fabricated transfer certificate before the office of Respondent No. 2 regarding issuing fresh mark
sheet (Annexed as Annexure CA-4 & 4(1) of the counter affidavit).

e. The respondent no. 2 wrote a letter on 24.08.2024 to the Principal, St. Thomas Girls Inter
College, Meerut asking to send a report whether the High School hand written mark sheet was
issued or not. Thereafter the Principal of the concerned Institution informed through his letter dated
29.08.2024 that the student's result (CP) is not complete in the school gazette and no handwritten
mark sheet has been issued to the student by the school.

f. From the above, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 03.07.2025, therefore, on the basis
of the enquiry report, letter dated 01.04.2025 of the District Basic Education Officer and report
dated 29.08.2024 of the Principal St. Thomas Girls Inter College Meerut, the TC and High School
handwritten mark sheet of examination year 1984, serial number-1233725 submitted by petitioner
were found to be forged/fabricated and therefore, rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

g. The petitioner appeared in the high school personal examination in the year 1984, serial
number 1233725, from the registered school St. Thomas Girls Inter College, whose result list has
been withheld in the CP category. Despite the list being withheld in the CP category due to the
petitioner's result being ineligible, she fraudulently prepared a handwritten High School mark sheet
and a fake Class 11th TC from the school i.e. St. Thomas Girls Inter College, Meerut, and took
admission in Class 12th in another school, namely, Bhagirathi Arya Inter College, Meerut, and
succeeded in appearing in the Intermediate Institutional Examination in the year 1987, serial
number 061944. The petitioner presented TC SR No. 12010 of her previous school, i.e., St. Thomas
Girls Inter College Meerut, which was submitted at the time of admission in class 12, for
confirmation of which the office's enquiry officer, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, has mentioned in
his on-site enquiry report that:-

"परीिाधियनी वीना मेनन द्वारा इण्िरमीडडएि परीिा वर्य-1987, ववद्र्ािर् भागीरिी आर्य कन्र्
इण्िर कािेज मेरठ के प्रवेश के समर् जो किा-11 उिीणय स्िानान्तरण प्रमाणपत्र क्रमांक-12010 ववद्र्ािर्
सेन्ि िॉमसय गल्सय इण्िर कािेज मेरठ से तनगयत, प्रस्तुत ककर्ा िा। उक्त किा-11 उिीणय स्िानान्तरण
प्रमाणपत्र कमांक-12010 का सम्बजन्ित ववद्र्ािर् सेन्ि िॉमसय गल्सय इण्िर कािेज मेरठ से सत्र्ापन /
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
परीिण ककर्ा गर्ा। परीिण में पार्ा गर्ा कक उक्त स्िानान्तरण प्रमाणपत्र ववद्र्ािर् सेन्ि िॉमसय गल्सय
इण्िर कािेज मेरठ से नहीं ककर्ा गर्ा है। जजसकी पुजष्ि सेन्ि िॉमसय गल्सय इण्िर कािेज मेरठ के
प्रिानािार्य ने अपने पत्र हदनांक 25.10.2025 के द्वारा से भी की है। स्पष्ि है कक परीिाधियनी द्वारा किा-12
में प्रवेश हेतु कूिरधित/फजी स्िानान्तरण प्रमाणपत्र के आिार पर प्रवेश लिर्ा गर्ा है। तद्नुसार
परीिाधियनी वीना मेनन का इण्िरमीडडएि परीिा वर्य-1987, अनुक्रमांक- 061944 का परीिाफि तनरस्त
ककर्ा जाना समीिीन होगा।"

h. As a result of the said enquiry report and the Principal's letter dated 25.10.2025 confirming
the petitioner's Class-11 Transfer Certificate as forged/fake, the result of the petitioner's
Intermediate Institutional Examination 1987, Roll No. 061944 is pending consideration before the
competent examination committee for cancellation. (Annexure No.CA-14).

i. In Chapter-XII, Regulation-10(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Education Rules
1983-88, regarding the eligibility of individual candidates, it is mentioned that only individual
candidates belonging to one of the following categories will be able to appear in the High School
Examination:

"(एक) वे परीिािी, जजन्होने तनम्नलिखित में से कोई परीिा उिीणय की हो इस प्रततबन्ि के साि
कक कधित परीिा उिीणय करने के पश्िात दो शैक्षिक वर्य बीत िुके है:-

(क) जूतनर्र हाईस्कूि परीिा अिवा उिर प्रदेश में संिालित वह परीिा जो पहिे हहन्दुस्तानी
लमडडि परीिा कहिाती िी अिवा उिर प्रदेश के अततररक्त अन्र् राज्र्ों के लशिा ववभाग द्वारा संिालित
अिवा मान्र्ता प्राप्त कोई समकि परीिा।

(ि) पररर्द अिवा लशिा ववभाग उिर प्रदेश द्वारा मान्र्ता प्राप्त उच्ििर ववद्र्ािर् को किा-8
की परीिा अिवा उिर प्रदेश र्ा उसके बाहर जस्ित सामान्र् ववद्र्ािर् का अनुरूप परीिा इस प्रततबन्ि के
साि कक र्ह स्कूि ककसी ऐसी परीिा तनकार् से सम्बद्ि र्ा मान्र्ता प्राप्त है, जजसको परीिाएं पररर्द
द्वारा मान्र्ता प्राप्त है।"

In light of the above rule, it is confirmed that to appear in the High School Individual
Examination, a candidate must have passed Class 9 or two academic years have passed since
passing Class 8. Therefore, requesting a transfer certificate from the candidate/applicant is in
accordance with the Board's regulations.

j. In the light of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court, it is most respectfully submitted that
in the matter in question, the petitioner concealing the facts on the basis of forged/fake records, sent
the file to the competent Examination Committee of the Board of Secondary Education, Uttar
Pradesh Prayagraj vide office letter dated 14.11.2025 for cancellation of the result of
appearing/passing in the High School and Intermediate examination. The order of the Examination
Committee on the matter on 18.11.2025 is as follows:
4 All. Veena Menon Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763

"सलमतत ने तनश्िर् ककर्ा कक परीिाधियनी श्रीमती वीना मेनन द्वारा किा 8 की कूिरधित एवं
फजी िी०सी० के आिार पर किा 9 में प्रवेश िेकर हाईस्कूि व्र्जक्तगत परीिा वर्य 1984 अनु०-1233725 से
परीिा में सजम्मलित होने तिा अहयता के अभाव में परीिाफि के सूिी सी०पी० में रूके होने के बाद भी
पररर्दीर् ववतनर्मों के ववपरीत पुनः कूिरधित एवं फजी अलभिेिों के आिार पर तथ्र्गोपन करते हुए किा
11 में प्रवेश िेकर इण्िरमीडडएि संस्िागत परीिा वर्य 1987 अनु0- 061944 से उिीणय ककर्ा गर्ा है। अतः
परीिाधियनी श्रीमती वीना मेनन का हाईस्कूि व्र्जक्तगत परीिा वर्य 1984 अनु०-1233725 एवं
इण्िरमीडडएि संस्िागत परीिा वर्य 1987 अनु०-061944 का परीिाफि तनरस्त ककर्ा जार्। परीिाधियनी को
तनगयत अंकपत्र एवं प्रमाण पत्र वापस प्राप्त ककर्ा जार् एवं जजिा ववद्र्ािर् तनरीिक द्वारा तनरस्तीकरण
की सूिना दैतनक समािार पत्र में प्रकालशत करार्ी जार्।"

k. It is necessary to pass Class 8th examination for appearing in the High School examination
and the petitioner was not found to be qualified in Class 8th and appeared in Examination of Class
10th against the provisions of Chapter-XII, Regulation-10 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Board of
Secondary Education Rules 1983-88.

l. The petitioner submitted an affidavit along with forged and fabricated transfer certificate of
Class 8th before the respondent no. 2, due to which the petitioner was not entitled to appear in High
School Examination, therefore, the entire certificates of the petitioner are found to be forged and
fabricated.

m. One Manjul Kumar obtained the appointment on the basis forged mark sheet. The
respondent-authority stopped his salary without passing any written order, thereafter, Manjul
Kumar filed Writ-A No.