Vinit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

RESERVED
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 142 of 2026
Vinit Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Man Bahadur Singh, Saurabh
Kumar, Shivendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Yatindra
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and
Mr. Yatindra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.
“(i). The present writ petition has been instituted challenging
the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the District Basic Education
Officer, Shamli, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher has been declared void ab initio and
cancelled with immediate effect.
(ii). A further prayer has been made seeking issuance of a writ,
order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Teacher along with all consequential benefits, including
continuity of service and payment of arrears of salary.”

2
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
2. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner passed the High School
Examination in the year 2006, bearing Roll No.0612450, and
thereafter passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 2008,
bearing Roll No.0324070, both in First Division, from the Board
of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner obtained a degree of
Bachelor of Technology in the year 2012 in First Division from
Sundardeep College of Engineering and Technology, Ghaziabad,
affiliated to Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter
successfully completed the two-year Basic Training Certificate
(BTC) course, Batch 2012, in the year 2015, securing First
Division.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
educational certificates and mark sheets of the petitioner, including
those pertaining to his graduation, were duly verified during the
course of his BTC training by the Principal, DIET, for the session
2012-2015, and that the BTC certificate was issued only upon due
verification and satisfaction regarding the authenticity of all his
credentials.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner qualified the Uttar
Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test (UPTET) for the Primary Level
held for the session 2013-14, the result whereof was declared in
the year 2014.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
State Government initiated a recruitment process for appointment
of 15,000 Assistant Teachers during the year 2014-15 in primary

3
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
schools, run and managed by the Board of Basic Education, Uttar
Pradesh, Prayagraj. The petitioner, being fully qualified and
otherwise eligible, applied pursuant to the said advertisement and
was duly selected.
8. It is further submitted that the counselling of the petitioner
was conducted in the office of the District Basic Education
Officer, Shamli, on 26.10.2015, wherein the petitioner produced
all his original documents, including mark sheets and certificates
of the Intermediate Examination, which were duly verified, and a
receipt acknowledging submission of such documents was issued
to him. It is further submitted that thereafter Respondent No.3
issued an appointment order dated 28.06.2016, pursuant to which
the petitioner joined his duties at Primary School, Kertoo, Block-
Un, District Shamli, on 04.07.2017. Since then, the petitioner has
been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and,
as contended, no complaint has ever been made against him.
9. It is further submitted that on account of certain compelling
personal circumstances, including illness, demise of his mother,
death of his real brother, and other attendant difficulties, the
petitioner remained absent from duties with effect from
01.07.2020. It is contended that thereafter the petitioner submitted
a representation seeking permission to resume his duties, and
pursuant thereto, the District Basic Education Officer, Shamli, by
order dated 09.12.2022 permitted the petitioner to rejoin the
institution.
10. It is further submitted that prior to permitting the petitioner
to rejoin his duties, his educational credentials were duly verified
by the competent authorities. The High School Certificate of the

4
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
year 2006, bearing Roll No.0612450, and the Intermediate
Certificate of the year 2008, bearing Roll No.0324070, were
verified. Further, the petitioner’s B.Tech degree of the year 2012,
bearing Roll No. 0832810053, was also verified by the office of
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, vide office order dated 11.11.2022, bearing No.20149.
11. It is further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid office
order, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin his duties on
20.12.2022 and continued to discharge the same. However, it is
contended that the salary of the petitioner was not released,
compelling him to submit an application dated 16.09.2023 before
the District Basic Education Officer, Shamli, seeking release of his
salary.
12. It is further stated that on the same day, the petitioner also
submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Shamli,
wherein specific allegations were levelled against one Shri
Rishipal, a clerk working in the office of respondent no.3, alleging
that he was instrumental in withholding the petitioner’s salary for
extraneous considerations. The said application was personally
submitted by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Shamli.
13. It is further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid
application moved by the petitioner, the District Basic Education
Officer, Shamli, vide letter dated 21.12.2023, sought a report from
the Block Education Officer, Block- Un, for withholding the
salary.
14. In response thereto, the Block Education Officer, Un,
submitted a report stating that at the time of rejoining in
December, 2022, the petitioner had produced an Intermediate mark

5
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
sheet bearing Roll No.0374070, which, upon verification from the
official website of the Board, was found to be allotted to one
Poonam, daughter of Yadram Singh. On the basis of the said
discrepancy, the Block Education Officer sought to justify the
withholding of the petitioner’s salary.
15. Taking note of the aforesaid report, the District Basic
Education Officer, Shamli, vide letter dated 09.02.2024, directed
the Block Education Officer, Un, to submit a fresh report along
with supporting evidence.
16. It is further contended that along with the earlier report, the
Block Education Officer, Un, also placed on record a prior report
dated 24.08.2020, wherein the Intermediate mark sheet and
certificate of the petitioner bearing Roll No.0324070, and not Roll
No.0374070, thereby indicating an apparent inconsistency in the
records relied upon for withholding the petitioner’s salary.
17. It is further submitted that Respondent No.3 issued a show
cause notice dated 17.06.2025 to the petitioner alleging that he had
submitted forged and fabricated mark sheet and certificate of the
Intermediate Examination, 2008, bearing Roll No.0374070. It was
further alleged that the mark sheet and certificate pertaining to the
petitioner’s B.Tech degree were also found to be forged. The
petitioner was accordingly required to submit his reply within a
period of one week.
18. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply
dated 28.06.2025 before Respondent No.3, categorically stating
that his correct roll number in the Intermediate Examination is
0324070 and that all his mark sheets and certificates are genuine.
It was further asserted that his B.Tech degree is also genuine and

6
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
had already been duly verified by the competent authorities. The
said reply was duly submitted in the office of Respondent No.3 on
28.06.2025.
19. It is contended that without considering the aforesaid reply,
Respondent No.3 issued another notice dated 14.07.2025, which
was substantially a reiteration of the earlier notice. The petitioner
again submitted a detailed response dated 28.07.2025, reiterating
that all his educational documents are genuine and clarifying that
he had appeared in the Intermediate Examination with Roll No.
0324070. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued yet another notice
dated 11.08.2025 stating that the reply submitted by the petitioner
was not found satisfactory and granting him a final opportunity to
submit a written explanation along with supporting evidence. In
compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated
27.08.2025.
20. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without properly
appreciating or considering the replies submitted by him, and
without conducting any fair or proper inquiry as contemplated
under the relevant Rules of 1999, Respondent No.3 proceeded to
pass the impugned order dated 06.10.2025, whereby the
appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed in a wholly arbitrary manner, without due
consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioner in response
to each of the notices issued by Respondent No.3. It is further
contended that no proper inquiry, as mandatorily required under
the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1999,
has been conducted prior to passing of the impugned order.

7
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
Consequently, the impugned action stands vitiated for non-
compliance with the statutory provisions as well as for being in
flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
22. It is further submitted that the District Basic Education
Officer has, at no point of time, furnished any verification report
or letter obtained either from the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or from the Technical
University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, along with the notices issued
to the petitioner. In the absence of such foundational material, the
allegations leveled against the petitioner remain unsubstantiated
and the impugned action stands vitiated.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s appointment was made only after due verification of
all original documents, including the educational certificates. It is
specifically contended that the Intermediate Certificate, bearing
Roll No. 0324070, was duly produced and verified at the relevant
point of time. It is further submitted that all original educational
records of the petitioner have remained in the custody of the
respondent authorities since the counselling conducted in the year
2015. Despite this, at no point of time prior to the passing of the
impugned order did the respondents raise any allegation that the
petitioner had submitted forged or fabricated documents, whether
in respect of the Intermediate Certificate or any document
purportedly issued by the Technical University.
24. It is further submitted that the original educational records
and documents of the petitioner were duly verified by the
Principal, DIET concerned at the relevant point of time. No
discrepancy or irregularity was ever pointed out during such

8
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
verification. It is specifically contended that no allegation had ever
been made that the petitioner produced any forged document, nor
that any Intermediate Certificate bearing Roll No.0374070 was
submitted by the petitioner. There is also no material on record to
suggest that any other forged or fabricated educational document
was ever furnished by the petitioner.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mandatory inquiry, as contemplated under Rule 5(3) of the U.P.
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, read with Rules 7, 8 and 9 of
the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999,
has not been conducted in the present case. It is contended that
compliance with the aforesaid provisions is a condition precedent
for passing any adverse order. In the absence of such an inquiry,
the impugned order stands vitiated for non-compliance of
mandatory statutory requirements and is, therefore, patently illegal
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed in complete disregard of the petitioner’s ten
years of satisfactory and unblemished service. It is further
contended that the order has been issued without affording any
opportunity of hearing and without conducting a proper inquiry.
The impugned action is, therefore, in clear violation of the
principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside as being
bad in law.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is vitiated by a patent error of fact, inasmuch as the
respondent authorities have proceeded on an incorrect assumption
that the petitioner’s Intermediate Examination Roll No. is

9
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
0374070, whereas, in fact, the correct Roll No. is 0324070. It is
contended that the said fact stands duly verified by the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, as per
report dated 14.11.2022. It is further submitted that the District
Basic Education Officer had himself verified the petitioner’s
educational documents at the time of appointment. In view thereof,
the very foundation of the impugned order is erroneous, rendering
the same unsustainable in law.
28. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s graduation
certificate also stands duly verified by the Technical University, as
is evident from the report dated 11.11.2022. However, the said
material document has not been considered by the respondent
authorities while passing the impugned order. The non-
consideration of such vital evidence renders the impugned order
arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
29. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the directions issued
by this Hon’ble Court, the Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, U.P., Prayagraj, furnished its instructions, wherein the
genuineness of the petitioner’s Intermediate mark sheet bearing
Roll No.0324070 has been duly affirmed.
30. It is further submitted that the respondents have completely
ignored the material fact that the petitioner’s absence w.e.f.
01.07.2020 had already been condoned, and thereafter, upon due
verification of all educational documents, the petitioner was
permitted to rejoin/continue on the post vide order dated
09.12.2022. Once the respondents themselves had regularized the
petitioner’s position after such verification, it was not open to
them to subsequently take a contrary stand without any fresh

10
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
material or due process, rendering the impugned action arbitrary
and unsustainable in law.
31. It is further submitted that even the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
vide letter dated 09.02.2024, has expressed doubt over the report
submitted by the Block Education Officer dated 24.08.2020, which
appears to have been prepared on an erroneous assumption
regarding the petitioner’s Intermediate Examination Roll Number
as “0374070”. In view thereof, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari sought
clarification on the said discrepancy. This itself demonstrates that
the very basis of the adverse material relied upon by the
respondents is doubtful and unreliable, thereby vitiating the
impugned action.
32. It is further submitted that, as specifically pleaded in the
grounds of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that a clerk,
namely Shri Rishipal (Senior Clerk), had demanded extraneous
consideration from him. Upon the petitioner’s refusal, it is alleged
that the said official manipulated the records and introduced a
fabricated mark-sheet reflecting an incorrect Roll Number
“0374070”. The petitioner contends that the entire sequence of
events indicates a deliberate manipulation of records at the level of
the Block Education Office, involving the concerned officials,
including the said clerk. These allegations, though serious in
nature, have neither been properly inquired into nor addressed by
the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order,
thereby vitiating the decision-making process.
33. It is submitted that the impugned order, having been founded
upon the report of the Block Education Officer and predicated on
verification of an altogether different Roll Number, i.e., 0374070,

11
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
is manifestly perverse and arbitrary. The reliance on such incorrect
and irrelevant material strikes at the very root of the decision-
making process, thereby rendering the impugned order
unsustainable in law.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed in complete violation of the principles of
natural justice, inasmuch as the documents relied upon by the
respondent authorities have never been supplied to the petitioner. It
is contended that neither the alleged forged mark-sheet bearing
Roll No.0374070, nor the purported verification report of the
Board, nor any other material referred to in the impugned order,
was ever furnished to the petitioner. In the absence of disclosure of
such material, the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to
controvert the same, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is
well settled in law that even in cases involving allegations of
fraud, forgery, or submission of fake certificates, the delinquent
employee must be supplied with all documents relied upon and
afforded a full and fair opportunity to rebut the allegations. It is
contended that such procedural safeguards are integral to the
principles of natural justice. In the present case, the said
mandatory requirements have not been complied with, as no
relevant material was furnished to the petitioner nor any effective
opportunity of hearing was granted. Consequently, the impugned
order stands vitiated and is liable to be set aside as being bad in the
eyes of law.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
respondent authorities have wrongly placed reliance upon a

12
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
marksheet bearing Roll No.0374070, whereas the petitioner’s
actual Roll No. in the Intermediate Examination is 0324070, which
was duly submitted at the time of counselling. It is contended that
the original educational documents were retained by the
respondent authorities and have remained in their custody. The
genuineness of the petitioner’s Intermediate marksheet bearing
Roll No. 0324070 has been duly verified not only at the stage of
BTC training but also by the concerned Board, pursuant to the
directions issued by this Hon’ble Court. In the said verification,
the marksheet bearing Roll No. 0324070 has been confirmed to
pertain to the petitioner and to be genuine. In such circumstances,
the reliance placed on a marksheet bearing a different Roll No. is
wholly misconceived and renders the impugned order
unsustainable in law.
37. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed in a wholly mechanical manner, without due
application of mind, inasmuch as the detailed reply submitted by
the petitioner has not been considered at all. It is contended that
the undisputed fact regarding the petitioner’s Intermediate
Certificate bearing Roll No. 0324070, duly verified at the time of
appointment in the year 2016, at the time of rejoining in the year
2022, and also pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon’ble
Court, has been completely ignored.
38. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have
instead placed reliance on undisclosed documents, which were
never supplied to the petitioner, thereby depriving him of any
effective opportunity to defend himself. The original records,
which are admittedly in the custody of the respondents, have also

13
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
been overlooked. The entire action has been founded upon an
incorrect roll number, and no inquiry, as required under law, has
been conducted.
39. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the impugned
order is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and
liable to be set aside.
40. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant
Teacher vide appointment order dated 28.06.2016 issued by the
then BSA, Shamli. It is further submitted that the said appointment
order was conditional in nature, expressly stipulating that in the
event the educational, training, degree, or caste certificates
furnished by the candidate at the time of counselling were found to
be forged, manipulated, or otherwise false, the appointment shall
stand cancelled automatically. Thereafter, the verification of
academic certificates of the candidates appointed in District
Shamli pursuant to the recruitment in question was forwarded vide
letter dated 29.07.2016 issued by the office of the District Institute
of Education and Training (DIET), Muzaffarnagar. In the said
verification list, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 9.
It is submitted that on the basis of such verification, the salary of
the petitioner came to be released.
41. Learned counsel for the respondent has further pointed out
that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties
at primary school Kertoo Block, Un, District Shamli, with effect
from 13.06.2020, without any prior intimation or sanction of leave.
42. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the
educational records of teachers, Shiksha Mitras, and part-time

14
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
instructors in District Shamli were being maintained on the Manav
Sampada portal. During the course of updating the said records, it
was revealed that in respect of the institution in question, the
petitioner had relied upon a Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech)
degree in Computer Science and Engineering purportedly issued
by U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (as it was then known).
However, the authenticity of the said degree appeared doubtful
inasmuch as, at one place, the qualification was recorded in Hindi
as “Bachelor of Technology,” while at another place, in English, it
was reflected as “Master of Business Administration.” Apart from
this discrepancy, the degree certificate was also found to contain
several spelling errors. The aforesaid discrepancies were duly
brought to the notice of the competent authority by the Block
Education Officer, Block Un, District Shamli, vide letter dated
24.08.2020.
43. In the aforesaid letter/report dated 24.08.2020, it was further
mentioned that the petitioner had relied upon High School and
Intermediate certificates purportedly issued by the Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Prayagraj, for the years 2006 and 2008
respectively. Upon verification of the said mark sheets from the
official website of the Parishad, it was found that the Intermediate
mark sheet of the petitioner pertaining to the examination year
2008, bearing Roll No. 0374070, was forged, inasmuch as the said
roll number corresponded to one Poonam, daughter of Shri
Yadram Singh. The Block Education Officer further called upon
the petitioner to produce original documents; however, the
petitioner failed to do so, whereupon his salary was withheld.

15
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
44. Accordingly, in the report dated 24.08.2020, the Block
Education Officer recorded that upon district-level verification, the
petitioner’s Intermediate certificate was found to be forged during
online verification, and his B.Tech degree also appeared to be
doubtful. In view thereof, it was recommended that appropriate
action, in accordance with law, be taken for termination of the
petitioner’s services.
45. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a letter dated 24.07.2021
was issued by the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Shamli,
addressed to the Secretary of the Parishad at Regional Office,
Meerut through the Block Education Officer, requesting
verification of the petitioner’s Intermediate mark sheet/certificate
pertaining to the year 2008, bearing Roll No.0374070. As no
verification report was received in response, the Block Education
Officer, vide letter dated 11.08.2021, informed that he had
personally visited the Regional Office of the Parishad at Meerut
for the purpose of verification as sought in the letter dated
24.07.2021. It was further stated that upon such visit, the Deputy
Secretary of the Parishad directed that the verification report
would be sent through post.
46. The then Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) also addressed
letters dated 18.06.2021 and 11.02.2022 to Uttar Pradesh Technical
University, now known as Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical
University, seeking verification of the petitioner’s graduation mark
sheet and degree; however, no response was received from the
University in this regard.
47. Acknowledging the application submitted by the
petitioner,requesting for rejoining, the Block Education Officer,

16
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
vide letters dated 16.07.2022 and 16.08.2022, apprised the then
BSA that the petitioner had remained absent from the institution
since 01.07.2020 on account of illness. It was further reported that
a criminal case had been lodged against him by his wife in relation
to alleged demand of dowry, and that he had also suffered the
demise of his parents as well as his brother. In view of these
circumstances, it was conveyed that the petitioner was unable to
attend the institution.
48. Thereafter, the petitioner’s High School certificate pertaining
to Roll No. 0612450 of the year 2006 and Intermediate certificate
pertaining to Roll No. 0324070 of the year 2008 were forwarded
for verification to the Parishad and its Regional Office at Meerut.
The said authority furnished its verification report vide letter dated
14.11.2022.
49. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that earlier,
during the tenure of Smt. Geeta Verma, the then BSA, Shamli, the
petitioner had submitted an Intermediate certificate to her at the
time of counselling, which was forwarded for verification;
however, no report was received in that regard. It is further
submitted that subsequently, another mark sheet of Intermediate
examination pertaining to Roll No. 0324070 has been relied upon
during the verification process initiated in the year 2022, pursuant
to letter dated 13.10.2022 issued by the then BSA, Rahul Mishra.
50. He further submits that during the tenure of the then BSA,
Shamli, Shri Rahul Mishra, and the then Patal Incharge, Shri
Sethpal Singh, Senior Assistant, the B.Tech degree of the
petitioner was also forwarded to the Technical University for

17
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
verification. In response thereto, the Registrar of the Technical
University furnished the verification report.
51. Accordingly, during the tenure of the aforesaid officers the
petitioner was permitted to rejoin his duties after a prolonged
period of unauthorized absence from the institution, on the basis of
the aforesaid verifications. Consequently, the petitioner rejoined
his post on 20.12.2022.
52. Thereafter, Shri Rahul Mishra, th0e then BSA, was
transferred, and the charge of the office of BSA was entrusted to
the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Saharanpur Region,
Saharanpur. Subsequently, Kumari Komal assumed charge as BSA
on 23.03.2023.
53. After the joining of the new Basic Education Officer, the
entire sequence of earlier verification reports, including that of the
Block Education Officer dated 24.08.2020, as well as the
subsequent verification and rejoining of the petitioner after a
prolonged period, was brought to her notice and request for a fresh
verification of the petitioner’s educational documents was sought
by the Block Education Officer vide letter dated 23.06.2023.
54. The Block Education Officer, vide letter dated 18.10.2022,
informed the office of the BSA that the petitioner had been
permitted to rejoin his post pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2022
issued by the then BSA, wherein certain doubts were also
expressed regarding the petitioner’s academic certificates. The said
letter further records that the Assistant Director of Education
(Basic), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, had issued directions to
consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

18
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
55. Again, upon the application of the petitioner seeking
payment of salary from the date of his rejoining, the Block
Education Officer, vide letter dated 18.10.2023, referred to the
entire sequence of events concerning the petitioner’s educational
documents, including the earlier verification reports, and requested
that the said documents be subjected to verification once again.
56. In response to the aforesaid application, the District Basic
Education Officer, vide letter dated 10.11.2023 addressed to the
Block Education Officer, directed that the petitioner’s academic
certificates and other documents be duly verified. It was further
required that all records and proceedings relating to the
petitioner’s initial appointment, including the educational and
training documents submitted by him at the time of appointment,
be thoroughly examined and verified.
57. The Block Education Officer, in his letter dated 18.12.2023,
has further stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner at
the time of his admission in DIET, Muzaffarnagar, as well as at the
time of his initial appointment in the year 2016, included an
Intermediate mark sheet and certificate of the year 2008 bearing
Roll No. 0374070. However, at the time of rejoining in December,
2022 at BRC, Block- Un, the petitioner submitted an Intermediate
mark sheet of the year 2008 bearing Roll No. 0324070.
58. It has further been noted that during the course of online
verification, the Intermediate mark sheet bearing Roll No.
0324070 was found to be in the name of the petitioner, whereas the
mark sheet bearing Roll No. 0374070 pertains to one Poonam,
daughter of Shri Yadram Singh.

19
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
59. The Block Education Officer, Block-Un, has also submitted
letters dated 06.02.2024 and 06.03.2024, wherein it has been
recorded that the petitioner had produced two different
Intermediate mark sheets on two separate occasions at BRC,
Block-Un. The said letters further point out discrepancies in the
petitioner’s B.Tech degree, in respect whereof notices have also
been issued to the petitioner,to which, no satisfactory reply has
been given by him.
60. The Secretary of the Parishad, vide letter dated 20.9.2024,
has reported that the mark sheet/certificate of the petitioner
pertaining to Roll No. 0374070 is forged and fake. In the aforesaid
regard, it has been stated that the said Roll No. 0374070 has not
been allotted to any regular or private candidate of any institution
falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Office of the
Parishad, Meerut.
61. Upon an inquiry made from the Principal, DIET,
Muzaffarnagar, a letter dated 13.11.2024 has been issued stating
that the petitioner, while pursuing Special BTC-2012, had
submitted photocopies of his educational and training
certificates/documents in the office, which were self-attested by
him. The said letter further records that the details of such
documents have been mentioned therein, including at Page 14,
column.
62. On the basis of the information furnished by the Parishad as
well as the material received from DIET, the salary of the
petitioner was withheld and notices were issued to him. However,
no satisfactory reply was submitted by the petitioner.
Consequently, the impugned order has been passed, declaring the

20
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
petitioner’s appointment as void ab initio, on the ground that he
had produced forged and fake educational certificates at the time
of seeking appointment.
63. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while
making the application for recruitment in question, initiated for
selection against 15,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in
primary schools, the petitioner had submitted his online
application bearing Registration No. 730000760. In the said
application, while furnishing his academic details in response to
Column 12, the petitioner mentioned that he had passed
Intermediate in the year 2008 from the U.P. Board, specifying Roll
No. 0374070.
64. It is further submitted that the pre-registration form
submitted by the petitioner also contains the same particulars,
including the aforesaid roll number of the Intermediate
examination. The petitioner thereafter submitted his academic
certificates before the Selection Committee at the time of
counselling, under a prescribed proforma dated 14.01.2016, which
likewise reflects the same Roll No. 0374070 for the Intermediate
examination of the year 2008.
65. The said documents have been brought on record along with
the short counter affidavit as Annexure No.21, which includes
copies of the High School mark sheet and certificate, online
application form, Intermediate mark sheet and certificate,
Graduation mark sheets and degree, BTC mark sheet and
certificate, domicile certificate, caste certificate, bank details and
passbook, Primary Level TET (PAT) certificate, and the notary
affidavit of the petitioner.

21
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
66. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA has filed a
supplementary counter affidavit in compliance with the order
dated 04.09.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court, whereby it was
directed that the original records, as produced before the Court, be
brought on record by means of an affidavit.
67. The photocopies/photostat copies of the original documents,
duly self-attested by the petitioner and enclosed along with the
original set of documents submitted at the time of counselling for
the recruitment in question, as well as those submitted with the
original application before the DIET in respect of counselling for
BTC Training 2012, as provided by the Principal, DIET under
letter dated 13.11.2024, have been collectively filed along with the
supplementary affidavit.
68. The said documents include: 1 . the High School Examination,
2006 mark sheet and certificate, wherein the roll number is shown as
0612450; 2. the mark sheet and certificate of the Intermediate
Examination, 2008, bearing roll number 0374070, with the name of the
school/examination centre recorded as Janata Inter College, Lisarh.
Muzaffarnagar; 3. the mark sheets of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.)
in Computer Science and Engineering issued by Gautam Buddha
Technical University for First Year, Second Year, Third Year and Final
Year, bearing roll number 0832810053; and 4. the Bachelor of
Technology degree issued by Uttar Pradesh Technical University,
Lucknow, certifying that the petitioner has obtained the degree in
Computer Science and Engineering with First Division, also bearing
roll number 0832810053. However, in English version Master of
business administration is mentioned.
69. The other documents placed on record include the certificate
issued by Gautam Buddha Technical University in the year 2012,

22
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
evidencing the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology
(B.Tech.) in Computer Science and Engineering to the petitioner.
The documents further placed on record include the mark sheet of
the BTC Two-Year Examination (Batch 2013), First Semester
(Year 2013); the mark sheets of the BTC Two-Year Examination
(Batch 2012), Second Semester (Year 2014), Third Semester (Year
2014), and Fourth Semester; as well as the certificate of
completion of the BTC Two-Year Course (Batch 2012),
प्रशि क्षण
Examination Year 2015, issued by the Pariksha Niyamak Adhikari,
Uttar Pradesh.
70. Additionally, the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test
(UPTET) 2013-14 certificate issued by the Examination
Regulatory Authority, Allahabad, has also been placed on record.
The Caste Certificate issued from the office of the Tehsildar,
Kairana, District Shamli, and the Domicile Certificate issued from
the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Kairana,
District Shamli, have also been annexed along with the
supplementary counter affidavit. These documents formed part of
the original record produced before this Hon’ble Court.
71. The petitioner’s application submitted pursuant to the
advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher in Parishadiya
Primary Schools, for the purpose of counseling, records the
educational qualifications at Serial No. 11, wherein it is stated that
the petitioner passed the Intermediate Examination from the U.P.
Board, Allahabad, in the year 2008, with the roll number
mentioned as 0374070. The online application form likewise
reflects the same particulars, indicating the roll number as
0374070 for the Intermediate Examination of the year 2008.

23
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
72. The online registration application bearing Registration No.
7300000760 also reflects the same particulars, recording the roll
number as 0374070 for the Intermediate Examination, 2008.
73. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed written
submissions stating that the petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in a primary school vide appointment order
dated 28.06.2016 and joined his duties at Primary School Kertoo,
Block-Un, District Shamli. However, it is submitted that the
petitioner remained absent from duty with effect from 13.06.2020
without any prior intimation.
74. It is further submitted that during the process of updating
and maintaining service records of teachers, Shiksha Mitras, and
Part-Time Instructors on the Manav Sampada portal, certain
discrepancies came to light regarding the petitioner’s educational
qualifications. In particular, doubts were raised concerning the
petitioner’s B.Tech degree as well as his Intermediate mark sheet
bearing Roll No. 0374070, as reflected in the report dated
24.08.2020.
75. At the time of submitting his online application for the post
in question, the petitioner had relied upon his B.Tech degree,
details whereof have already been brought on record. It is further
submitted that a provisional B.Tech certificate was earlier
furnished by the petitioner before the District Institute of
Education and Training (DIET), Muzaffarnagar (District Shamli),
in connection with his admission to the BTC Training Course,
2012. The said certificate was forwarded to the office of the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Shamli by the Principal, DIET, vide letter dated
13.11.2014.

24
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
76. With regard to his Intermediate qualification, the petitioner
relied upon a mark sheet and certificate of the year 2008 bearing
Roll No. 0374070, which were also submitted before the
concerned DIET at the time of counselling for BTC Training,
2012, and were subsequently forwarded by the Principal, DIET,
vide letter dated 13.11.2014. The petitioner’s online application for
the post in question, as well as the self-attested hard copy
submitted at the time of counselling in District Shamli,
consistently mention the same roll number, i.e., 0374070, for the
Intermediate Examination, 2008.
77. It is thus submitted that all documents furnished by the
petitioner, both at the time of counselling for the BTC Training
Course, 2012 and for the post in question, uniformly reflect that he
passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 2008 under Roll
No. 0374070.
78. It is further submitted that the petitioner remained absent
from duty with effect from 13.06.2020 without any prior
intimation to the department and, after a prolonged period of
nearly two years, sought to rejoin his duties by moving an
application dated 16.07.2022. Pursuant thereto, an office order
dated 09.12.2022 was issued for verification of the petitioner’s
documents, including his Intermediate certificate of the year 2008.
However, at this stage, the petitioner disclosed a different roll
number, i.e., 0324070, which had never been mentioned earlier.
79. It is significant to note that the said roll number surfaced for
the first time only at the stage of rejoining, after an unexplained
absence of two years. Prior to this, in all records and documents
submitted by the petitioner, including his application forms and

25
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
documents furnished at the time of counselling, the Intermediate
certificate consistently bore Roll No. 0374070. There was, in fact,
no occasion for seeking fresh verification of documents at the
stage of rejoining.
80. In such circumstances, the conduct of the petitioner in
submitting an application for verification along with an
Intermediate mark sheet bearing a different roll number, i.e.,
0324070, for the first time raises serious doubt and calls for
scrutiny.
81. It is further submitted that, without examining the reasons
for the petitioner’s prolonged absence of nearly two and a half
years, and without calling for any explanation in that regard, the
petitioner was permitted to rejoin duties, and he accordingly
submitted his joining in July, 2022. Since the petitioner had
remained absent for a considerable period, no salary was paid to
him from July, 2020 onwards. Consequently, the petitioner
submitted an application dated 24.08.2020 before the District
Basic Education Officer, Shamli, seeking payment of salary.
82. While considering the issue of salary, the Block Education
Officer initiated correspondence and sent letters and reminders to
the District Basic Education Officer, Shamli, for re-verification of
the petitioner’s documents and service records, particularly with
regard to his academic qualifications and requisite training. In
response, the District Basic Education Officer directed the
concerned Block Education Officer to submit a detailed report
regarding the petitioner’s academic certificates and related
documents.

26
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
83. Pursuant thereto, the Block Education Officer submitted a
report dated 18.12.2023, highlighting discrepancies in the
petitioner’s Intermediate qualification, specifically noting the
existence of two different roll numbers relied upon by the
petitioner in respect of his Intermediate mark sheet and certificate.
The report further records that while verification of the petitioner’s
B.Tech degree was obtained through the concerned clerk of DIET,
Muzaffarnagar, no verification could be found with respect to his
High School and Intermediate certificates.
84. In light of the aforesaid discrepancies, notices dated
06.02.2024 and 06.03.2024 were issued to the petitioner by the
Block Education Officer, calling upon him to furnish an
explanation regarding his Intermediate mark sheet and certificate.
Meanwhile, the Intermediate mark sheet and certificate bearing
Roll No. 0374070, relied upon by the petitioner at the time of
online application and counselling, were sent for verification to the
U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Regional
Office, Meerut. In response, the office of the Regional Secretary,
vide letter dated 20.09.2024, reported that the said mark sheet and
certificate were forged and fabricated.
85. Further inquiry into the petitioner’s academic credentials
continued, and during the course thereof, a communication dated
12.06.2025 was sent by the Block Education Officer, Block
Kairana, District Shamli, to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, stating
that the petitioner had again remained absent from duty for the
preceding six to seven months without any prior intimation.
Appropriate action was sought against the petitioner, along with

27
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
necessary directions regarding his status, particularly in the
context of the ongoing process of inter-district mutual transfer.
86. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner calling upon
him to furnish his explanation with respect to the doubtful
certificates pertaining to the Intermediate Examination, 2008
bearing Roll No. 0374070, as well as his B.Tech degree. Although
the petitioner claims to have submitted replies to the said notices,
the explanations furnished were found to be wholly unsatisfactory,
particularly in relation to the discrepancies concerning the
Intermediate mark sheet and certificate. Accordingly, the
impugned order came to be passed.
87. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner has alleged that the impugned order has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of
the Rules, 1999. However, it is contended that such a plea is
misconceived. In cases involving fraud, misrepresentation, or
concealment of material facts, particularly where the genuineness
of the educational certificates forming the basis of appointment is
under serious doubt—no prior opportunity of hearing or regular
inquiry, as contemplated under the Rules, 1999, is mandatorily
required. It is submitted that where the very foundation of
appointment is vitiated, the authorities are justified in taking
appropriate action without resorting to a full-fledged inquiry.
88. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is
evident on record that the petitioner has indulged in
misrepresentation and fraud. While submitting his online
application for the post in question, the petitioner disclosed his
Intermediate Examination, 2008 Roll No. as 0374070, which was

28
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
also consistently relied upon by him at the time of counselling for
the BTC Training Course, 2012 before the DIET. However, for the
first time, at the stage of rejoining in the year 2022, after a
prolonged unauthorized absence, the petitioner produced an
Intermediate certificate of the year 2008 bearing a different Roll
No., i.e., 0324070.
89. It is submitted that a detailed examination of the records and
verification reports obtained from time to time clearly establishes
that the petitioner relied upon two different Intermediate mark
sheets at different stages, one at the time of seeking appointment
and during BTC counselling, and another at the time of rejoining.
This material inconsistency, coupled with the absence of any
plausible explanation, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the
petitioner has committed fraud by furnishing contradictory and
unreliable educational credentials.
90. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar
vs. Kriti Narayan Prasad (2019) 1 ESC 3 (SC), decided on
30.11.2018, wherein it has been categorically held that fraud
vitiates all solemn acts. It is submitted that where an appointment
is obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation, the same
stands vitiated at its very inception.
91. In such circumstances, the requirement of holding a regular
disciplinary inquiry under the Rules, 1999 read with the U.P. Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973, or any other applicable service rules,
does not arise. The protection of statutory provisions governing
disciplinary proceedings is available only to those employees who
have secured appointment through lawful means and thereafter

29
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
commit some misconduct during the course of service. However, a
person who obtains appointment by fraud cannot claim the benefit
of such protections, as his very entry into service is illegal and
void ab initio.
92. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the original documents brought on record along with the
supplementary affidavit dated 13.03.2026 clearly establish the
commission of fraud by the petitioner with respect to his
Intermediate academic credentials relied upon by him. It is
contended that the material on record unequivocally demonstrates
that the petitioner has furnished inconsistent and unreliable
documents.
93. It is further submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner
is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Court by repeatedly seeking
an inquiry with respect to the Intermediate Examination, 2008
bearing Roll No. 0324070, whereas the controversy in the present
case pertains to the mark sheet bearing Roll No. 0374070. It is
emphasized that there is no specific pleading in the writ petition
raising any issue with regard to Roll No. 0324070, and therefore,
such a contention is wholly misplaced and cannot be permitted to
be agitated at this stage.
94. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
there is not even a whisper in the writ petition regarding any
inadvertent mistake or human error on the part of the petitioner
while filling the online application, wherein he had clearly
mentioned Roll No. 0374070 for the Intermediate Examination,
2008. It is only in response to the notices issued by the authorities

30
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
that the petitioner has sought to introduce such a plea, which is
clearly an afterthought and devoid of merit.
95. It is further contended that the Intermediate certificate of the
year 2008 bearing Roll No. 0374070, which was relied upon by
the petitioner both at the time of seeking appointment and during
the BTC Training, has already been found to be forged. It is only
for the first time, at the stage of rejoining in the year 2022, that the
petitioner sought verification of an Intermediate mark sheet
bearing a different Roll No., i.e., 0324070. This subsequent
document appears to have been procured by the petitioner during
the period of his unauthorized absence, and thereafter sought to be
introduced at various stages before the authorities, including the
Parishad and other competent forums.
96. The conduct of the petitioner, in repeatedly shifting his stand
and relying upon two different roll numbers for the same
examination, clearly indicates a deliberate attempt to manipulate
records and lends further credence to the allegation of fraud.
97. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
even the B.Tech degree of the petitioner appears to be forged, as
has already been elaborated in the earlier paragraphs while
advancing submissions before this Hon’ble Court.
98. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that a comprehensive and detailed inquiry into the
petitioner’s educational credentials is warranted at every level,
including verification from the institution from which he
purportedly appeared in the Intermediate Examination.
99. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting

31
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
interference by this Hon’ble Court, accordingly, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
100. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
101. The record reflects that the petitioner, at the time of
submitting his online application as well as during counselling and
BTC training, consistently disclosed his Intermediate
Examination, 2008 Roll Number as 0374070, which formed the
very foundation of his eligibility. However, at the stage of
rejoining in the year 2022, after a prolonged unauthorized absence,
the petitioner introduced a different roll number, i.e., 0324070, and
sought to rely upon a different mark sheet.
102. The material on record clearly establishes that the roll
number 0374070 has been found to be forged and not pertaining to
the petitioner. The petitioner has thus relied upon two different sets
of Intermediate certificates at different stages, without furnishing
any plausible explanation.
103. Apart from the aforesaid discrepancy, serious doubts have
also been raised by the respondents regarding the petitioner’s
B.Tech degree, which cannot be ignored by this Court. The
discrepancies, as specifically pointed out, include: (i)
inconsistency in the description of the degree, where at one place it
is mentioned as Bachelor of Technology, while at another it is
reflected as Master of Business Administration; (ii) apparent
spelling and typographical errors in the degree certificate; (iii) lack
of consistent and reliable verification from the concerned
Technical University at earlier stages; and (iv) doubts expressed by
the competent authorities during scrutiny of records maintained on

32
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
the Manav Sampada portal and departmental files. These
discrepancies, when read in conjunction with the inconsistency in
the Intermediate certificates, prima facie indicate that the
petitioner’s educational credentials are not free from suspicion.
104. It is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and an
appointment obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated
documents is void ab initio and confers no enforceable right. It is
also a settled principle of law that where the very foundation of
appointment is tainted, the requirement of holding a regular
disciplinary inquiry is not mandatory, and the authorities are
justified in cancelling such appointment.
105. The record shows that the petitioner has relied upon two
different Intermediate roll numbers at different stages. The roll
number originally disclosed, i.e., 0374070, has been found to be
forged, and the petitioner has failed to furnish any satisfactory
explanation for such inconsistency. The B.Tech degree of the
petitioner is also prima facie doubtful in view of the material
discrepancies pointed out by the respondents. Hence, the
appointment of the petitioner is vitiated by fraud and
misrepresentation and is void ab initio. In view of the serious
nature of discrepancies, this Court deems it appropriate to direct a
comprehensive, multi-level inquiry so as to ascertain the
authenticity of the petitioner’s educational credentials in their
entirety. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) Inquiry regarding Intermediate Examination, 2008 has to be
conducted in the following manner:-

33
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
(a) Verification shall be conducted from the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, with respect to both
roll numbers 0374070 and 0324070.
(b) A detailed inquiry at the school level, i.e., the institution from
where the petitioner claims to have appeared, shall be conducted to
verify: admission records, scholar register entries, attendance
registers, internal assessment records, forwarding of examination
forms.
(c) Inquiry shall also be conducted at the examination centre where
the petitioner allegedly appeared in the Intermediate Examination,
2008, including: examination attendance sheets, centre records,
invigilation records, any preserved documentary evidence.
(d) The authorities shall ascertain conclusively whether the
petitioner actually appeared in the said examination and, if so,
under which roll number.
(ii) Inquiry regarding B.Tech Degree shall be conducted in
following manner:-
(a) A thorough verification shall be conducted from Dr. A.P.J.
Abdul Kalam Technical University regarding the authenticity of
the petitioner’s B.Tech degree.
(b) The University shall specifically clarify: whether the degree
was actually issued to the petitioner, the correct title of the degree
(B.Tech or otherwise), the correctness of the roll number and year
of passing.
(c) The concerned college/institution shall produce original
records relating to admission, attendance, semester-wise
examination results, award of degree.

34
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
(d) The discrepancies noted, including variation in degree
description, spelling errors and format irregularities, shall be
specifically examined to determine whether the degree is genuine
or fabricated.
106. The records maintained at DIET, the counselling authority,
and the Basic Education Department shall be examined to identify:
the documents originally submitted by the petitioner; any
alteration or substitution of records, the stage at which such
discrepancies arose.
107. It is an admitted position that the petitioner remained absent
for a period of two years and sought to rejoin only in 2022,
without any prior intimation to the competent authorities and
without any sanctioned leave. There is not even a whisper in the
pleadings explaining whether the petitioner was engaged
elsewhere during this period or furnishing any justification for
such prolonged unauthorized absence. Accordingly, these facts
assume significance, as the conduct of the petitioner indicates that
the intervening period may have been utilized to manage or
manipulate records, particularly for the purpose of substituting the
original certificate submitted at the time of appointment with
another certificate bearing a different roll number. Therefore, these
aspects are also relevant and must necessarily be taken into
consideration while conducting the inquiry.
108. This Court further observes that if any manipulation,
collusion or negligence on the part of officials is found,
appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law against
such erring officials.

35
WRIA No. - 142 of 2026
109. The entire inquiry shall be completed within a period of four
months from the date of production of a certified copy of this
order. A reasoned report shall be placed before the competent
authority, who shall thereafter pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
110. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
illegality in the impugned order dated 06.10.2025, therefore, no
interference is required. The writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the directions for comprehensive inquiry, as detailed
above, shall be strictly complied with, and the reinstatement of the
petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the inquiry.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
May 12, 2026
Rahul Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad