Arun Kumar Majhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
1 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 4558 of 2014
CNR No.: MPHC030152372014
ARUN KUMAR MAJHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar and Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocates for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Reserved on : 19.09.2026
Pronounced on: 14.10.2026
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
“i) The order annexure P/1 may be quashed and petitioner be held
entitled for appointment and the respondents may be directed to issue
appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on the post of Patwari,
ii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case including costs may also be granted,”
(2.) The controversy involved in the present case has already been decided
today in WP.No.4553/2014 [Vandana Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
2 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
And Others] . The order passed in Vandana Soni (supra) is quoted below for
ready reference and convenience:
“ This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-
“i) The order annexure P/1 may be quashed and petitioner be held
entitled for appointment and the respondents may be directed to
issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on the post of
Patwari,
ii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case including costs may also be granted,”
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order
dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Collector, District Bhind, whereby her
candidature for appointment to the post of Patwari was cancelled on the ground
that her PGDCA certificate was doubtful.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in
the Patwari Selection Examination conducted by VYAPAM in the year 2008 and
secured 87.16 marks. She was placed in the waiting list under the OBC Women
category. It is submitted that candidates who had secured lower marks were also
considered for appointment, but the petitioner was denied appointment.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner obtained her PGDCA
certificate from the erstwhile University of Technology and Sciences, Raipur, in
January 2005. The certificate was issued before the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Prof. Yashpal and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2005) 5
SCC 420 . The issuing University had verified the certificate as genuine.
However, the respondents cancelled her candidature on the basis of certain
doubts regarding the certificate.
5. Learned counsel further submits that this Court in Ved Prakash Sharma
and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2011 (3) MPLJ 148 , considered the issue
relating to computer qualification certificates issued by universities in
Chhattisgarh for the Patwari Selection Examination, 2008. It is argued that the
petitioner's certificate could not have been rejected without properly examining
its genuineness and validity.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was sent for Patwari
training and completed the same. However, instead of issuing her appointment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
3 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
order, the respondents cancelled her candidature by the impugned order dated
30.04.2014.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this
Court to the communication dated 05.02.2026 issued by the erstwhile University
of Technology and Sciences, Raipur, in compliance with the directions of this
Court. By this communication, the University confirmed that the petitioner's
certificate was genuine and that her name was available in its records. It is,
therefore, submitted that the basis on which the respondents cancelled her
candidature no longer survives.
8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner did
not possess the computer qualification recognised under Clause 1.8 of the
advertisement. It is argued that the respondents conducted a proper verification
and found several discrepancies regarding the University, availability of records,
recognition of the course through distance education and issuance of the
certificate.
9. Learned Government Advocate further submits that this Court had
dismissed W.P. Nos. 4897/2012, 4801/2012, 4759/2012 and 587/2012 by order
dated 14.05.2013 and that the writ appeals against the said order were also
dismissed. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's candidature was rightly
cancelled and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Learned Government Advocate further placed reliance on the judgment
rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of M.P. And
Others Vs. Sher Singh Rawat and Ors. in WA. No.334/2026 .
11. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. The main question before this Court is whether the respondents were
justified in cancelling the petitioner's candidature on the grounds mentioned in
the impugned order, particularly when the issuing University has subsequently
verified her certificate as genuine.
14. Before moving ahead, this Court feels it apt to quote relevant portion of
Annexure P-1 which goes as under:
esjs }kjk Jherh lksuh ds çek.k i= dk ijh{k.k fjV fiVh'ku 4897@2012 esa
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kMihB Xokfy;j }kjk tkjh funsZ'kksa ds çdk'k esa fd;k x;kA
ijh{k.k esa fuEu vk/kkjkas ij çLrqr nLrkost dks lafnX/k ,oa QthZ ekurk gw¡A
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
4 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
1&;wfuoflZVh v‚Q VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj fnukad 23-8-2003 dks vfLrRo esa
vk;k Fkk rFkk ;kfpdk Øekad 19@2004 çkS- ;'kiky fo#) NÙkhlx<+ 'kklu esa
ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-2-05 ds ckn ;s fo-fo- can gks pqdk gSA fnukad 11-2-05 dks
can gksaus ds ckctwn ;wfuoflZVh v‚Q VsDukSykSth ,.M lkbal ds uke ls dEI;wVj
çek.k i= dk lR;kiu fn;k tkuk lansgkLin gSA vr% dEI;wVj çek.k i= dks lansg
ds nk;js esa ykrk gS A
2& NÙkhlx<+ çkbosV ;wfuoflZVh jsxwysVjh deh'ku ds i= fnukad 28-11-2013 ds }kjk
voxr djk;k x;k gS fd ;kfpdk Øekad 19@2004 çkS- ;'kiky fo#) NÙkhlx<+
'kklu esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-2-05 ds ckn ;wfuoflZVh v‚Q VsDuksyksth ,.M
lkbal jk;iqj dks ia- jfo'kadj 'kqDy fo'ofo|ky; jk;iqj esa lEc) fd;k x;k gSA
vr% dEI;wVj çek.k i= dk lR;kiu ia- jfo'kadj fo-fo- jk;iqj }kjk fn;k tkuk
pkfg;s A bl gsrq bl dk;kZy; ls dEi;wVj izek.k i=ksa ds lR;kiu gsrq i= Øekad
D;w&8@Hkw&vfHk@LFkk&1@2014@330 fnukad 13-3-14 ,oa i= Øekad 506 fnukad 3-
3-14 fo'ks"k okgd ds ek/;e ls Hkstk x;k] ijarq fjdkMZ miyC/k u gksaus ls ia-
jfo'kadj fo'ofo|ky; }kjk lR;kiu ugha fn;k x;k gSA vr% çek.k i= lansgkLin
gSA
3&Jherh lksuh }kjk iwoZ esa foosdkuan lekt dY;k.k laLFkku fHk.M dk fnukad 8-5-
02 esa tkjh dEI;wVj çf'k{k.k dk çek.k i= çLrqr fd;kA mä çek.k i= vekU; gksaus
ds dkj.k buds }kjk ;wfuoflZVh v‚Q VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj ls tuojh 05
dk ihthMhlh, dk izek.k çLrqr fd;kA ;fn buds ikl ;wfuoflZVh v‚Q
VsDukSykSth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj ls tuojh 05 esa tkjh dEI;wVj izek.k i= iwoZ ls Fkk]
rks iwoZ esa gh izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s Fkk] tks ugha fd;k x;kA vr% çi= lansg ds
nk;js esa vkrk gSA
4&vkosnd }kjk voxr djk;k gS fd Mhlh, dh ijh{kk tuojh 05 esa vk;ksftr dh
xbZ FkhA ,oa ijh{kk ifj.kke Hkh tuojh 05 esa ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA tuojh 05 esa
ijh{kk vk;ksftr dj ,oa ijh{kk ifj.kke Hkh tuojh 05 esa ?kksf"kr dj vadlwph ,oa
çek.k tuojh 05 esa gh tkjh djuk Hkh lansg ds nk;js esa vkrk gSA
5& loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 11-2-05 ds ckn ;wfuoflZVh v‚Q
VsDukSykSth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj ds ia- jfo'kadj fo'ofo|ky; jk;iqj esa lEc) gksaus ds
ckn tks Nk= ia- jfo'kadj fo'ofo|ky; esa lEc) fd;s x;s gSa] muesa Mhlh,]
ihthMhlh, dk ,d Hkh Nk= ugha gSA vr% Jherh oanuk lksuh dk tuojh 05 esa
;wfuoflZVh v‚Q VsDukSykSth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj esa ços'k ysdj ihthMhlh, dh ijh{kk
nsuk lansg iSnk djrk gSA vr% çek.k i= lansg ds nk;js esa vkrk gSA
15. In compliance of the order dated 05.01.2026, the University verified the
DCA/PGDCA certificate and found it to be genuine vide communication dated
05.02.2026, the relevant extract of which is quoted below:
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE : Near Employment Exchange, Pandri, Raipur – 492 004
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
5 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
Phone no.:5017798, 5059552, Fax :0771 – 2420001
www.theuts.com . E-mail – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
Ref. Date …...................
Ref: PUC/024/0941 Date :05.02.2026
izfr]
uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd]
ftyk&fHkaM
fo"k;% çek.k i= dh lR;rk ckcr-
lanHkZ%& ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB Xokfy;j }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad
24@11@2025] dk;kZy; dysDVj ftyk fHkaM dk vkns'k fnukad 29@12@2025 ,oa
iqfyl v/kh{kd fHkaM dk vkns'k fnukad 5@1@2026
ekuuh; egksn;]
mijksä fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkids }kjk lanfHkZr i= esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
esa ;kfpdk Øekad 4548@2014] 4552@2014] 4553@2014] 4556@2014] 4557@2014]
4558@2014 esa U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-11-2025 esa fuEufyf[kr
vH;kfFkZ;ksa 1- iadt dqekj ;kno 2- Jh jathr flag rksej 3- Jherh oanuk lksuh 4-
Jherh iwue feJk 5- v'kksd dqekj 6- v#.k dqekj eka>h ds çek.k i= tks iwoZorhZ
;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksy‚th ,aM lkbalsl }kjk tkjh fd, x, Fks mudh lR;rk tkapus
dks vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gS- blh vuqØe esa dk;kZy; dysDVj ftyk fHkaM dk vkns'k
fnukad 29@12@2025 ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd fHkaM dk vkns'k fnukad 5@1@2026 Hkh tkjh
gqvk gS-
vH;kfFkZ;ksa 1- iadt dqekj ;kno 2- Jh jathr flag rksej 3- Jherh oanuk lksuh
4- Jherh iwue feJk 5- v'kksd dqekj 6- v#.k dqekj eka>h ds çek.k i= tks
iwoZorhZ ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksy‚th ,aM lkbalsl }kjk tkjh fd, x, Fks og
çekf.kd gS- mijksä lHkh vH;FkhZ iwoZorhZ ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksy‚th ,aM
lkbalsl ls mÙkh.kZ gSa rFkk vfHkys[kksa esa budk uke ntZ gS-
bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa Hkh dk;kZy; dysDVj Hkw vfHkys[k ftyk fHkaM }kjk vad lwph dk
ijh{k.k djok;k x;k Fkk ftlds tokc esa iwoZorhZ ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksy‚th ,aM
lkbalsl us 29@4@2011 dks tkap çfrosnu tek fd;k Fkk- mijksä lanfHkZr tkap
çfrosnu fnukad 29@4@2011 Hkh layXu gS-
vkids }kjk pkgs x, nLrkost tks iwoZorhZ ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksy‚th ,aM lkbalsl ls
lacaf/kr gS og Hkh bl i= ds lkFk layXu gS-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
6 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
vkids }kjk pkgs x, nLrkost tks iwoZorhZ ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksykWth ,aM lkablst ls
lacaf/kr gS og Hkh bl i= ds lkFk layXu gSa-
okLrs] iwoZorhZ ;wfuoflZVh vkQ
VsDuksykWth ,aM lkablst
ERSTWHILE
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
AND SCIENCES RAIPUR,
CHHATTISGARH
16. Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2014 shows that the Collector
treated the petitioner's certificate as doubtful for five reasons. The first was that
the University of Technology and Sciences, Raipur, was affected by the judgment
in Prof. Yashpal and others (supra) . The second was that Pandit Ravishankar
Shukla University could not verify the certificate because the relevant records
were unavailable. The third was that the petitioner had earlier submitted a
certificate issued by Vivekanand Institute. The fourth was that the examination
was conducted and the result was declared in January 2005. The fifth was that
no DCA/PGDCA students were found among the students subsequently affiliated
or transferred to Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University.
17. This Court shall now examine the aforesaid five grounds in the light of the
material available on record.
18. In Ved Prakash Sharma and others (supra) , this Court considered the
issue relating to computer qualification certificates submitted by candidates
appearing in the Patwari Selection Examination, 2008. The Court directed that
the certificates issued by the concerned universities of Chhattisgarh should be
examined in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment in Prof.
Yashpal and others (supra) .
19. In Prof. Yashpal and others (supra) , the Supreme Court examined the
legal validity of the provisions relating to the establishment of private
universities in Chhattisgarh. However, the said judgment does not mean that
every certificate issued before the judgment was automatically forged. The
genuineness of a certificate and its validity for the purpose of recruitment are
separate questions which must be examined on the basis of the applicable law
and relevant material.
20. The first ground recorded by the Collector, therefore, cannot by itself
establish that the petitioner's certificate was forged or fabricated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
7 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
21. The second ground is that Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University could not
verify the certificate because the relevant records were unavailable. However, the
inability of one University to verify a certificate due to the non-availability of
records does not necessarily mean that the certificate is forged. In the present
case, the issuing University has subsequently verified the certificate as genuine
by its communication dated 05.02.2026 and confirmed that the petitioner's name
is available in its records. Therefore, the earlier inability to verify the certificate
cannot be treated as conclusive proof against the petitioner.
22. The third ground relates to the petitioner's earlier submission of a
certificate issued by Vivekanand Institute. The fact that the petitioner had earlier
submitted a certificate issued by another institution does not, by itself, prove that
the PGDCA certificate subsequently produced by her is forged. The respondents
were required to examine the genuineness of the certificate actually relied upon
by the petitioner instead of drawing an adverse conclusion merely because
another certificate had been submitted earlier.
23. The fourth ground relates to the examination being conducted and the
result being declared in January 2005. This Court finds that the fact that an
examination was conducted and its result was declared in the same month does
not, by itself, establish that the marksheet or certificate is forged. Moreover, the
record indicates that the marksheet was issued on 09.02.2005. Therefore, the
observation in the impugned order regarding the date of issuance is not
supported by the record. In any case, the declaration of the result in the same
month as the examination cannot be treated as proof of forgery in the absence of
other supporting material.
24. The fifth ground is that no DCA/PGDCA students were found among the
students subsequently affiliated or transferred to Pandit Ravishankar Shukla
University. This fact may have led the respondents to seek further clarification,
but it does not establish that the petitioner was never enrolled with the erstwhile
University or that her certificate was not genuinely issued. The issuing
University has subsequently confirmed that the petitioner's name is available in
its records and that her certificate is genuine.
25. Thus, after examining all five grounds recorded in the impugned order, this
Court finds that none of them, either individually or collectively, is sufficient to
establish that the petitioner's certificate is forged or fabricated. The subsequent
verification dated 05.02.2026 is an important document which directly addresses
the doubts raised by the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
8 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
26. The next question is whether the respondents could cancel the petitioner's
candidature on the allegation that her certificate was forged or invalid without
following the procedure prescribed by law.
27. In Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369 , the
Supreme Court held that the Court can examine the real reason behind an order
and is not bound merely by the language used in it. If an order is based on
allegations that have serious consequences for the person concerned, the Court
can examine the actual basis of the action.
28. Similarly, in Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Leela Singh,
(2007) 12 SCC 146 , the Supreme Court considered a case involving an
allegation that an employee had obtained employment by producing a forged
experience certificate. The Court held that such an allegation had to be
established through a proper proceeding and that the termination could not be
sustained merely on the basis of an administrative decision.
29. The same principle applies to the present case. The petitioner's
candidature was cancelled on the basis of doubts regarding her educational
certificate. However, the respondents have not established through any
categorical finding of the issuing University that the certificate was forged. On
the contrary, the issuing University has subsequently verified the certificate as
genuine.
30. It is true that the respondents have the authority to verify the educational
qualifications of candidates and to ensure that they fulfill the eligibility
conditions prescribed in the advertisement. However, such verification must be
based on relevant material. A certificate cannot be treated as forged merely
because certain doubts arise regarding the status of the University or the
availability of records.
31. The similar controversy has already been decided by this Court in the case
of Devesh Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others (WP.
No.2582/2015) vide order dated 15.7.2026 , relevant of which goes as under:
“10. From perusal of the record reveals that the certificates issued by
the aforesaid Universities and produced with the seal and signature of
the Universities and issued prior to the pronouncement of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) i.e.
11" February, 2005 . The Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal
(supra) in para 64 and 65 is quoted below for ready reference and
convinience:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
9 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
64. As a consequence of the discussion made and the findings
recorded that the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act are
ultra vires and the gazette notifications notifying the
universities are liable to be quashed, all such universities shall
cease to exist. Shri Amarendera Sharan, learned Additional
Solicitor General has submitted that UGC had conducted an
inquiry and it was found that most of the universities were non-
existent, but the report was not placed before the Court as the
complete exercise had not been done. Learned counsel for the
universities have seriously disputed this fact and have submitted
that the universities are functioning. We have not gone into this
question as it is purely factual. In order to protect the interests
of the students who may be actually studying in the institutions
established by such private universities, it is directed that the
State Government may take appropriate measures to have such
institutions affiliated to the already existing State universities in
Chhattisgarh. We are issuing this direction keeping in mind the
interest of the students and also Sections 33 and 34 of the Act,
which contemplate dissolution of the sponsoring body and
liquidation of a university whereunder responsibility has to be
assumed by the State Government. It is, however, made clear
that the benefit of affiliation of an institution shall be extended
only if it fulfils the requisite norms and standards laid down for
such purpose and not to every kind of institution. Regarding
technical, medical or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may be
accorded if they have been established after fulfilling the
prescribed criteria laid down by All India Council of Technical
Education, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India
or any other statutory authority and with their approval or
sanction as prescribed by law.
65. In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition (C)
No. 19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh) and Writ
Petition (C) No. 565 of 2003 [For directions passed earlier, see
below] (Gopalji Agarwal v. Union of India) are allowed and
provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002
are declared to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a
consequence of such declaration, all notifications issued by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
10 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
State Government in the gazette in the purported exercise of
power under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the
universities (including Respondents 3 to 94) are quashed and
such universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have
been established by such universities, steps may be taken for
their affiliation to already existing State universities in
accordance with the direction contained in para 64 above.
Parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if any
dispute arises in implementation of this direction. All writ
petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by the private
universities are dismissed.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph shows that the Appex
Court had struck down the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the
Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur
Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002. However, in order to protect the interest
of the students who may be studying in the institution established by
the private universities. The State Government was directed to take
appropriate measures to get the institution affiliated with the state
universities. Meaning thereby, the carrier of the students who were
still studying in the institutions set up the university, the establishment
of which had been set aside in view of the striking down of the 2002
Act, was protected. The controversy regarding the certificate issued
by the erstwhile University of Technology and Science, Raipur (C.G.)
has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prof. Yashpal & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC
420 , such universities were invalidated with effect from 11.02.2005.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Kumari v. State
of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 249 after considering the judgment
passed in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) and held as under:
16. What is evident from the facts of the case is that the
University from which the appellants had studied had been set
up under the 2002 Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State
Legislature. The aforesaid Act was declared to be ultra vires by
this Court vide order dated 11.02.2005. Till such time, the
students had been studying and passing out. At the time of
declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires, this Court had
protected the students who were still studying. They were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
11 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
directed to be transferred to alternative institutions recognized
by the State. Considering the aforesaid fact and also that in the
factual situation in hand, the appellants cannot be said to be at
fault as they had studied in the University, which has been set
up under the 2002 Act enacted by the State Legislature. Hence,
they should not be deprived of the benefits of the degree
obtained by them while studying in the University. It is not the
case of the State that the University in which the appellants
studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted.
17. While recording the aforesaid findings, the next question
would be about the relief to which the appellants are entitled to.
From the facts on record, it is evident that the services of the
appellants were terminated only for the reason that the
institution in which they had studied was declared to be
unrecognised. Accordingly, the orders vide which the services of
the appellants were terminated have to be declared as illegal.
Ordered accordingly.
18. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the High
Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants
before the High Court is allowed. They are directed to be
reinstated back in service, with continuity. However,
considering the fact that they have not performed their duties
for the intervening period, and it cannot be said to be a case
where only the respondent-State is at fault, in our view, they
should not be entitled to any back wages.
12. The bone of contention of counsel for petitioner is that
petitioner is a State Government employee. Impugned orders are
punitive in nature and entails civil consequences. This can be done
only after following “due process”. I find substance in this
contention. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are statutory in nature. The rule 3
reads as under :-
“3. Application-(1) These rules shall apply to every
Government servant but shall not apply to -
(a) any member of the All India Services.
(b) any person in casual employment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
12 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
(c) any person subject to discharge from service on
less than one month's notice.
(d) any person for whom special provision is made, in
respect of matters covered by these rules, by or under any
law for the time being in force or by or under any
agreement entered into by or with the previous approval
of the Governor before or after the commencement of
these rules, in regard to matters covered by such special
provision:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the
Governor may by order exclude any class of Government
servants from the operation of all or any of these rules.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1), these
rules shall apply to every Government servant temporarily
transferred to a service or post coming within exception (d) in
sub-rule (1), to whom, but for such transfer, these rules would
apply.
(4) If any doubt arises-
(a) whether these rules or any of them apply to any
person, or
(b) whether any person to whom these rules apply
belongs to a particular service; the matter shall be
referred to the Governor who shall decide the same.”
13. The impugned order is punitive in nature. Therefore, it could
have been passed only after following the due process of law. In the
present case, this required a regular departmental inquiry after
framing charges against the petitioner. Under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution, the services of an employee can be terminated only after
holding a regular departmental inquiry. Such an inquiry requires
appointment of an Inquiry Officer, issuance of a charge-sheet, giving
the employee an opportunity to submit an explanation, and
considering that explanation before passing the final order. In the
present case, serious allegations of misconduct involving stigma have
been made against the petitioner. However, no regular departmental
inquiry was conducted and the mandatory provisions of the Madhya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
13 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966 were not followed before passing the impugned order. Therefore,
the impugned order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
and the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
14. It is settled position that if the order of termination is stigmatic
in nature, the same entails serious consequences on future prospects
of the petitioner and therefore the same ought to have been passed
after holding regular departmental enquiry. In the case of
Omprakash Gurjar v. Panchayat and Rural Development , W.P. No.
23267 of 2019, decided on 24.04.2022, this Court held as under:
" Upon bare perusal of the order of termination, there is no
doubt that the order of termination of petitioner is stigmatic in
nature and cannot be regarded as termination simpliciter. The
order clearly reveals that a stigma has been casted upon the
petitioner which shall have a direct impact upon his future
prospects. As the impugned order amounts to a stigma, the
services of the petitioner could not have been terminated
without holding an enquiry as has been laid down in the case of
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and
others, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. and
others, 2008(4) MPLJ 670. Therein it has been categorically
held that even the service of contractual employee cannot be
terminated without conducting regular enqiry if the order
amounts to a stigma. In the case of Hukum (supra), this Court
has set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50% backwages.
In view of aforesaid, the impugned order is hereby set aside.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service with 50% backwages within a period of 2 months from
the date of communication of the order. However, liberty is
granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner
afresh in accordance with law, if so advised.”
15. The Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in
the case of Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. and
another (W.P. No.18657 of 2018) vide order dated 23/11/2021 has
held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
14 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
“6. The short question of law involved in the present case is as
to whether the services of an employee under the Rules relating
to Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid
(District and Sessions Judge Establishment) Employees Rules,
1980, can be terminated without conducting a departmental
enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the
employee.
7. We are in full agreement with the legal position
expounded in various judgments cited by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. However, in the instant case, the
question that arise for consideration, as stated above, is
squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this
Court in the case of Krishna Pal Vs. District & Sessions Judge,
Morena (supra). In the present case, it is an admitted fact that
neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental enquiry was
conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction of
duty amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly
stigmatic order. The petitioner’s services are admittedly
governed under the Rules of 1980. If the facts and situation of
the present case is examined in the context of the facts and
situation of the case of Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this
Court had taken a view (para-5 of the said judgment) that
Normally when the services of a temporary employee or a
probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to an end
by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of
service or on account of an act for which some action is taken,
but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without
conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the
employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be
taken aid of. However, when the termination is founded on acts
of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such
an order casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the
employee and hence, the principle of natural justice,
opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are not
inclined to take a different view, therefore, in view of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
15 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
aforesaid, the impugned order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-
6) and order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) are set aside.”
16. The Apex Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India
(1984) 2 SCC 369 is quoted below for ready reference and
convinience:
11. On behalf of the Union of India reliance has been placed
on State of Punjab v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur [AIR 1968 SC
1089 : (1968) 3 SCR 234 : 1968 Cri LJ 687 : 1968 Lab IC
1286] ; Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba [(1969) 3 SCC 603] ;
State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra [(1970) 2 SCC 871 :
AIR 1971 SC 1011 : (1971) 2 SCR 191] ; R.S. Sial v. State of
U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 111 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 501 : AIR 1974 SC
1317 : (1974) 3 SCR 754 : 1974 Lab IC 858] ; State of U.P. v.
Ram Chandra Trivedi [(1976) 4 SCC 52 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 542
: AIR 1976 SC 2547 : (1977) 1 SCR 462 : 1976 Lab 1C 1647]
and I.N. Saksena v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1264 : (1967) 2
SCR 496 : (1967) 2 LLJ 427] . We have gone through these
decisions. Except the case of Ram Chandra Trivedi all other
cases referred to above were decided prior to the decision in
Shamsher Singh case [(1974) 2 SCC 831 : 1974 SCC (L&S)
550 : AIR 1974 SC 2192 : (1975) 1 SCR 814 : 1974 Lab IC
1380] which is a judgment delivered by a Bench of seven
Judges. As pointed out by us in all these cases including the
case of Ram Chandra Trivedi the principle applied is the one
enunciated by Parshotam Lal Dhingra case [AIR 1958 SC 36 :
1958 SCR 828 : (1958) 1 LLJ 544] which we have referred to
earlier. It is urged relying upon the observation in Shri Sukh
Raj Bahadur case [AIR 1968 SC 1089 : (1968) 3 SCR 234 :
1968 Cri LJ 687 : 1968 Lab IC 1286] that it is only when there
is a full scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article
311(2) of the Constitution i.e. an enquiry officer is appointed, a
charge-sheet submitted, explanation called for and considered,
any termination made thereafter will attract the operation of
Article 311(2). It is significant that in the very same decision it
is stated that the circumstances preceding or attendant on the
order of termination of service have to be examined in each
case, the motive behind it being immaterial. As observed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
16 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
Ray, C.J., in Samsher Singh case [(1974) 2 SCC 831 : 1974
SCC (L&S) 550 : AIR 1974 SC 2192 : (1975) 1 SCR 814 : 1974
Lab IC 1380] the form of the order is not decisive as to whether
the order is by way of punishment and that even an innocuously
worded order terminating the service may in the fact and
circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry into
allegations of serious and grave character of misconduct
involving stigma has been made in infraction of the provision of
Article 311(2).
12. It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of the
order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for
misconduct it is always open to the court before which the
order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the
true character of the order. If the court holds that the order
though in the form is merely a determination of employment is
in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the court would
not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in
giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee.
13. In the instant case, the period of probation had not yet
been over. The impugned order of discharge was passed in the
middle of the probationary period. An explanation was called
for from the appellant regarding the alleged act of indiscipline,
namely, arriving late at the gymnasium and acting as one of the
ringleaders on the occasion and his explanation was obtained.
Similar explanations were called for from other probationers
and enquiries were made behind the back of the appellant.
Only the case of the appellant was dealt with severely in the
end. The cases of other probationers who were also considered
to be ringleaders were not seriously taken note of. Even though
the order of discharge may be non-committal, it cannot stand
alone. Though the noting in the file of the Government may be
irrelevant, the cause for the order cannot be ignored. The
recommendation of the Director which is the basis or
foundation for the order should be read along with the order
for the purpose of determining its true character. If on reading
the two together the Court reaches the conclusion that the
alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
17 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
but for that incident it would not have been passed then it is
inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground
as the appellant has not been afforded a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself as provided in Article 311(2) of
the Constitution.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board
and Ors. Vs. Leela Singh reported in (2007) 12 SCC 146 opined that
employee has committed fraud in obtaining appointment by
production of forged experience certificate needs to be proved in a
duly constituted departmental proceeding . The Apex Court opined as
under :-
“5. The Charge against the respondent is that he has
committed fraud in obtaining the appointment by production of
a forged experience certificate. The said charge, in our
considered opinion, was required to be proved in a duly
constituted departmental proceeding. The services of the
appellant could not have been directed to be terminated relying
on and / or on the basis of the decision of the Board in the case
of another employee” 6. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant Board is
directed to initiate a departmental proceeding against the
respondent herein.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. The impugned order shows that the allegation against the
petitioner is that the DCA/PGDCA certificate submitted by him is
fabricated/forged. In my considered opinion, this allegation was
required to be proved in a duly constituted regular departmental
inquiry.
19. The petitioner was subjected to selection by recruiting agency.
He was sent on training and thereafter he was appointed. Status of
the petitioner, as shown in the appointment order, makes it clear that
CCA Rules are applicable on him. The impugned order shows that
allegations against the petitioner is that DCA/PGDCA certificate
submitted by him is fabricated /forged. In my view, this amounts to
casting a stigma on the petitioner. The order is thus punitive in
nature.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
18 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
20. It is true that the allegation of forgery against the petitioner has
not been established, as the communication dated 08.04.2026 issued
by the University/Society does not declare the certificate to be
forged. Once the employee disputes the allegation of forgery, the
employer cannot act solely on the basis of an administrative report
submitted by the Collector . The exercise undertaken by the Collector
was, at best, an administrative verification or preliminary fact
finding exercise. Such verification could furnish material for
initiation of disciplinary proceeding; however, it could not a
substitute duly constituted departmental inquiry. The Collector could
not simultaneously rely upon the verification material, drawn a
conclusive finding that the certificate was forged, attribute
misconduct to the petitioner and impose of punitive civil consequence
without proving the allegation in an inquiry conducted under the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966. The question whether the certificate is genuine or forged
is a disputed question of fact, which requires proof through a regular
departmental inquiry. Since the termination is founded on an
allegation of misconduct involving the submission of a forged
educational qualification certificate, the order is stigmatic and
punitive in nature. Consequently, compliance with the provisions of
the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966 is mandatory and any order of termination
passed without conducting such an inquiry is liable to be quashed.
21. The stand taken by the respondents in the present case is
identical to the stand taken by them in the case of Sandeep Sharma
v. State of M.P. W.P. No. 2107/2015, decided on 14.07.2015. The
issue involved therein was substantially the same, namely,
termination of service on the allegation relating to the validity of
educational qualification/certificate without conducting a regular
departmental enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the M.P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The
relevant part of the impugned order passed by the Collector
30.3.2015 in Sandeep Sharma (supra) is quoted below for ready
reference and convenience:
dk;kZy; dysDVj Hkw&vfHkys[k ftyk eqjSuk e-ç-
vkns'k
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
19 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
eqjSuk] fnukad
Øekad @Hkw&vfHk-@LFkk-iV-LFkk-@2015A iVokjh p;u ijh{kk 2008 esa p;fur
rFkk çf'k{k.k mijkUr fu;qä iVokfj;ksa ds dEI;wVj fMIyksek esa xM+cfM;ksa dh
f'kdk;r çkIr gksus ij p;fur iVokfj;ksa ds Onkjk çLrqr lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh
tkudkjh fofHkUu rglhyksa ,oa iVokjh çf'k{k.k 'kkykvksa ls çkIr dj mudk
fo'o fo|ky;ksa ls lR;kiu djok;k x;kA lR;kiu mijkUr ;g rF; çdk'k esa
vk;k gS fd Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk us O;kie Onkjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk
esa mÙkh.kZ gksdj 133-78 vad çkIr fd;s gSA ,oa budk vukjf{kr esfjV @ oSfVax
lwph esa 98 oka LFkku FkkA iVokjh p;u ijh{kk 2008 ds vUrxZr dkmUlfyax ds
le; Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk Onkjk vkbZlsDV laLFkk dk dEI;wVj
;ksX;rk dk çek.k i= çLrqr fd;k x;k tks fd fu/kkZfjr ekin.M dk u gksus ds
dkj.k iVokjh çf'k{k.k gsrq vik= ik;k x;k Fkk A
mä fu.kZ; ds fo#) buds Onkjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB
Xokfy;j esa ;kfpdk Øekad WP 1321@2011 çLrqr dh ftlesa ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 25-02-11 esa buds vH;kosnu ds fujkdj.k ds vkns'k fn;s x;sA U;k;ky;
ds vkns'k ds ikyu esa dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad LFkk@iV-p-i-
@08@2012@2347 fnukad 17 flrEcj 2012 ds Onkjk rRle; çLrqr ;w-Vh-,l-
fo-fo-jk;iqj ls tkjh Mh-lh-,- fMIyksek ds vk/kkj ij çf'k{k.k gsrq ik= ik;s tkus
ij iVokjh çf'k{k.k ij Hkstk x;k FkkA
&ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j ds Onkjk ;kfpdk Øekad
841 osnçdk'k ,oa vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21-01-2011 esa fuEukuqlkj funsZ'k
çlkfjr fd;s x;sA
The district authorities shall be at liberty to examine and to
verify the geniuses of the document of the educational and
other qualifications-
Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk dks dk;kZy;hu i= Øa- 1290@Hkw&vfHk- LFkk-
@iV- p;u@08@2014 fnukad 14-07-14 tkjh fd;k x;k ,oa ftlesa fuEu
foUnqvks ij tkudkjh pkgh xbZ%&
1&iVokjh p;u ijh{kk 2008 gsrq vkids Onkjk çLrqr dEI;wVj Kku
vgrkZ lEcU/kh çek.k i= dk ewy çek.k i=] vadlwphA
2&lacaf/kr fo-fo-ls çkIr dEI;wVj fMIyksek ds fy;s vkidk v/;;u
dsUæ@laLFkk dk uke rFkk ml laLFkk esa ços'k ,oa v/;;u lEcU/kh
çek.k e; tek dh xbZ Vîw'ku Qhl] ços'k vkosnu i= ,oa vU;
vfHkys[kksa ls lEcfU/kr nLrkostA
3&vkids Onkjk gk;j lsdsUMªh ijh{kk ,oa oh-,-@ oh,l-lh-] ,e-,l-
lh ;Fkk Lukrd @ LukrdksÙkj fMxzh ikl dh vadlwph ,oa lEcfU/kr
laLFkku esa ços'k ,oa v/;u lEcU/kh çek.kA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
20 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
4&O;kie Onkjk vk;ksftr iVokjh p;u ijh{kk o"kZ 2008 esa lEcU/kh gksus
lEcU/kh ços'k i= rFkk ijh{kk ifj.kke mijkUr tkjh vadlwphA
&dk;kZy;hu i= ds Øe esa Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk Onkjk fnukad
01-08-14 dks dysDVj egksn; ds le{k vkosnu çLrqr fd;k x;kA ysfdu ml
vkosnu esa dk;kZy; Onkjk pkgh xbZ tkudkjh miyC/k ugh djkbZ xbZA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j esa ;kfpdk Øekad WP 1321@2011
es ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 25-02-11 ds Øe esa dk;kZy; dysDVj ftyk eqjSuk ds
i= Øekad 1073@Hkw&vfHk-@iV- p;u 08@2012 fnukad 01-05-2012 ds ek/;e
ls vkosnu çLrqr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA ftlds Øe esa Jh lUrks"k
xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk Onkjk ;w-Vh-,l-fo- fo-jk;iqj ls tkjh Mh-lh-,- ds çek.k
i= ,oa vadlwph dh Nk;kçfr çLrqr dh FkhA
&Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk Onkjk rRl;e çLrqr ;w-Vh-,l- fo-
fo- jk;iqj vadlwph dh Nk;kçfr dks dk;kZy;hu i= Øekad 1820@Hkw&vfHk-
@LFkk-@iV-p-@08@2014 fnukad 02-09-14 Onkjk dqy lfpo ia- jfo'kadj
'kqDy fo-fo- jk;iqj NÙkhlx<+ ls Mh-lh-,- çek.k i= lR;kiu ds fy;s fuEu
foUnqvksa ij tkudkjh pkgh xbZ%&
1&Nk=ksa dk ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbUl jk;iqj esa ;k
vkids fo-fo-esa iath;u fdl fnukad ,oa fdl o"kZ esa gqvk gS rFkk muds
ukekadu Øekad D;k Fks \
2&D;k ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbUl jk;iqj dks Mh-lh-,-
ikB~îØe pykus dh vf/kdkjrk rRle; Fkh rFkk ifjlj ds ckgj e-ç- ds
fdu fdu ftyksa esa rFkk fdl fdl dkyst dks bl ;wfuoflZVh vkQ
VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbUl jk;iqj Onkjk lEcírk çnku dh xbZ Fkh \
3&mä Nk=ksa us fdl f'k{k.k l= esa ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M
lkbUl jk;iqj esa ços'k fy;k gS \
4&mä Nk=ksa us fdl l= esa ijh{kk esa Hkkx fy;k gS rFkk budk ijh{kk
dsUæ fdl laLFkk esa cuk;k x;k Fkk \
5& layXu çek.k i= dks lu 2005 esa tkjh djus dh vf/kdkfjrk
;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbUl jk;iqj dks Fkh\
6&D;k ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbUl jk;iqj Onkjk d{kk 10
mÙkh.kZ mEehnokj dks Hkh Mh-lh-,-dkslZ esa ços'k nsus dhvf/kdkfjrk Fkh \
7&mä Nk=ksa dks lfVZfQdsV fdl ekg esa feyk rFkk lfVZfQdsV fdl
fnukad esa tkjh fd;s x;s \
8&lyXu lfVZfQdsVksa dks tkjh djus dh vf/kdkfjrk rRle; ds
vf/kdkfj;ksa dks Fkh mä lfVZfQdsV oS| vFkok dwVjfpr gS \
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
21 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
dk;kZy; ds mä i= ds tckc esa mi dqy lfpo ia- jfo'kadj 'kqDy fo-fo-
jk;iqj }kjk vius i= Øa- 9334@41@ijh{kk@lR;kiu@14 fnukad 12-09-14 ds
ek/;e ls çfr vadlwph 100@& #i;s ds eku ls jkf'k tek djus gsrq fy[kk
x;kA ftlds Øe esa dk;kZy;hu i= Øa-2040@Hkw&vfHk-@i-p-i-@08@14
fnukad 02-09-14 ds lyaXu cSad vkQ bfUM;k Onkjk tkjh vkB vadlwfp;ks ds
fy; cSad Mªk¶V ia- jfo'kadj 'kqDy fo-fo- jk;iqj dks Hkstk x;k FkkA mi dqy
lfpo ia- jfo'kadj 'kqDy fo-fo- jk;iqj Onkjk vius i= Øa- 2762@ijh{kk@14
fnukad 22-11-14 Onkjk voxr djk;k x;k fd]
vkids Onkjk Hksth xbZ vadlwfp;ksa ds lR;kiu ls lEcfU/kr çdj.k 11 Qjojh
2005 ds iwoZ dk gSA vr% mä vadlwfp;ksa dk lR;kiu fd;k tkuk laHko ugh
gSA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd o"kZ 2005 esa fdlh Hkh Nk= dk ;w-Vh-,l- fo'o
fo|ky; esa iath;u ugh FkkA D;ksafd ;fn iath;u gksrk rks fo-fo-ds ifjlekiu
ds ckn Mh-lh-,- djus laca/kh vfHkys[k ia- jfo'kadj 'kqDy fo-fo- dks lksaik x;k
gksrk A
esjs Onkjk Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk ds dFku] çek.k i=ksa ,oa
dk;kZy;hu vfHkys[k dk ijh{k.k fjV fiVh'ku 841@10 Jh osnçdk'k o
vU; ,oa fjVfiVh'ku Øekad 4897@12 Jh çnhiflag xqtZj fo#í e-ç- 'kklu esa
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j Onkjk tkjh funsZ'kksa ds çdk'k esa
fd;k x;kA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; Onkjk fjV fiVh'ku ua- 4897@2012 çnhi flag
xqtZj ,oa vU; cuke dysDVj fHk.M ,oa f'koiqjh esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 14-05-
2013 esa ,d vko';d mYys[k ;g fd;k gS %&
In my further opinion, this is a matter of common knowledge
that there are mushroom growth of fake instutions, who have
no recognition, campus and still they are running course. in
that scenario, the employer is well within, its right examine the
genuineness and correctness of the certificates in a
microscopic manner. The method so adopted by the respondent
in examining the certificates in accordance with law and no
arbitrariness can be found in the same.
ijh{k.k esa Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk Onkjk çLrqr nLrkostks dks fuEu
vk/kkjksa ij dwVjfpr ekurh gwaA
1&;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj fnukad 23-08-03 dks vfLrRo
esa vk;k Fkk rFkk ;kfpdk Øekad 19@2004 çks- ;'kiky fo#í NÙkhlx<+ 'kklu
esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-02-2005 ds ckn ;s fo-fo-can gks pqdk Fkk rFkk bldk
lfEcfy;u i- jfo'kadj fo'ofo|ky; jk;iqj esa fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 11-02-
2005 dks can gksus ds ckotwn ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj
ds uke ls dEI;wVj çek.k i= dk lR;kiu fn;k tkuk lansgkLin gSA lR;kiu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
22 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
çek.k i= ij Erstwhile University of technology & Sciences
vafdr gS rFkk gLrk{kj gSA gLrk{kj djus okys vf/kdkjh dk uke o in eqæk
vafdr ugha gSA ;w-Vh-,l- fo'ofo|ky; cUn gksus ds ckn bl fo'o fo|ky;
Onkjk tkjh fMIyksek çek.k i= dk lR;kiu i- jfo'kadj fo'o fo|ky; jk;iqj
Onkjk fd;k tkuk FkkA vr% dEI;wVj çek.k i= dks dwVjfpr ekurh gwaA
2&Jh Hkxokuflag 'kkD; Onkjk çLrqr f'kdk;r ih-th-@247741@2013@99
esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd dysDVj fHk.M Onkjk ;w-Vh-,l- fMIyksek vekU;
fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa dk;kZy;hu i= Ø-733@Hkw&vfHk-@ih-th-@f'kdk-
@2014 fnukad 09-05-2014 ls ;w-Vh-,l-fo- ds fMIyksek vekU; fd;s tkus ds
laca/k esa rF;ksa o nLrkostksa dh tkudkjh exkbZ xbZ A ftlds Øe esa muds
Onkjk NÙkhlx<+ futh fo-fo- fu;ked vk;ksx dk dysDVj Hkw&vfHkys[k ftyk
fHk.M dks lacksf/kr i= Øekad 545@lw-vk-@185@,@2005@2562 fnukad 28-
04-2011 dh Nk;kçfr bl dk;kZy; dks Hksth xbZ] ftlds foUnq Øekad 03
esa ;g mYys[k gS fd ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj rFkk
NÙkhlx<+ fo-fo-mä nksuksa iwoZorhZ futh fo-fo-dks ;w-th-lh-ls ekU;rk çkIr ugh
FkhA tcfd iVokjh p;u ijh{kk 2008 esa ;w-th-lh- ekU;rk çkIr fo-fo- Onkjk
tkjh çek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij gh p;u fd;k tkuk FkkA
3& ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj dks v‚Q dSEil dkslZ
lapkfyr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugh Fkh tcfd vkosnd Onkjk dk;kZy; esa
fnukad 08-05-2012 dks çLrqr vius vH;kosnu esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd
mlds Onkjk ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal iUMªh jk;iqj ls lEcfU/kr
laLFkk ;w-Vh- ,l- ,DlVsUlu bLVMh lsUVj bUæiqjh Hkksiky ls o"kZ 2004&05
esa ,d o"khZ; dEI;wVj fMIyksek mÙkh.kZ fd;k FkkA tks mä fMIyksek çek.k i=
dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA
4& Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk Onkjk dkmUlfyax ds le; dEI;wVj
;ksX;rk vkbZlsDV ls tkjh çek.k i= çLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ysfdu dk;kZy; esa
fnukad 06-08-2014 dks vkosnu çLrqr djrs gq;s mldk dksbZ mYys[k u djrs
gq;s ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj ls tuojh 2005 esa tkjh
dEI;wVj çek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vius p;u fd;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k
gS tks ;wfuoflZVh vkQ VsDuksyksth ,.M lkbal jk;iqj muds ikl gksrk rks
dkmUlfyax ds le; gh çLrqr djrs tks ugh fd;k x;kA vr% çek.k i= lansg
ds nk;js esa vkrk gSA
&esjs }kjk Jh lUrks"k xqIrk ,oa ukFkqjke xqIrk ds izek.k i=ksa ,oa
dk;kZy;hu vfHkys[k dk ijh{k.k fjV fiVh'ku 4897@12 esa ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j Onkjk tkjh funsZ'kksa ds çdk'k esa fd;k x;kA
ijh{k.k esa Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk izLrqr nLrkostks dks fo'o fo|
ky; ls çkIr çek.khdj.k ds vk/kkj ij dwVjfpr ekurh gwaA
eåçå 'kklu lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds i= dz-lh@3&22@93@3@,d
fnukad 30 vxLr 1993 esa 'kkldh; lsodks dh vkjfEHkd HkrhZ ds i'pkr] muds
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
23 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
vik= vFkok v;ksX; ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa] muds fo#) dh tkus okyh
dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esa funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSa fd 'kklu ds le{k ;g ç'u mifLFkr
gqvk gS fd D;k fdlh 'kkldh; lsod ds ckjs esa ;g irk yxus ij fd og
foHkkx esa viuh vkjfEHkd fu;qfä ds fy;s vgZ vFkok ik= ugh Fkk] mls lsok ls
gVk;k tk ldrk gS \
bl fo"k; oLrq ds ckjs esa Hkkjr ljdkj ds dkfeZd yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku
eU=ky; ¼dkfeZd ,oa çf'k{k.k foHkkx½ us ijh{k.k dj lE;wd~ funsZ'k çlkfjr
fd;s gS] tks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk] ftyk/kh'k fot; uxj cuke ,e-
f=iqj lqUnjh nsoh] 1990 ¼4½ ,l-lh-vkj- 237 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks /;ku esa
j[krs gq,] çlkfjr fd;s x;s gSA vr% bl fo"k; ds ckjs esa jkT; 'kklu Hkh
fuEufyf[kr funsZ'k çlkfjr gS&
¼v½ tgk¡ dgha Hkh ;g ik;k tk;s fd dksbZ 'kkldh; lsod HkrhZ fu;eksa
vkfn dh 'krksaZ ds vuqlkj lsok esa çkjafHkd HkrhZ ds fy;s vgZ ;k ik= ugha
Fkk vFkok fu;qfä çkIr djus ds fy;s mlus >wBh lwpuk nh Fkh ;k >wBk
çek.ki= çLrqr fd;k gks rks mls lsok esa cuk;s ugh j[kk tkuk pkfg,A
¼c½ ,slk 'kkldh; lsod ;fn og ifjoh{kk/khu ;k vLFkk;h gS rks mls
lsok eqä ¼ Discharge ½ dj fn;k tk; ;k mldh lsok,a lekIr
¼ Terminate ½ dj nh tk;saA
¼l½ ;fn ,slk 'kkldh; lsod LFkk;h gks x;k gks] rks eåçå flfoy lsok
¼oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ds fu;e 14 esa fu/kkZfjr
tkap djkbZ tk;s ,oa vkjksi fl) gksus ij mls lsok ls gVk;k
¼ Remove ½ ;k c[kkZLr ¼ Dismiss ½ dj fn;k tk;sA fdlh Hkh n'kk esa
dksbZ vU; 'kkfLr ugh nh tk;saA
¼n½ rFkkfi bl çdkj lsok eqä djus@ lsok lekIr djus @ lsok ls
gVkus ;k c[kkZLr djus ls ,sls 'kkldh; lsod ij vfHk;kstu pykus ds
ljdkj ds vf/kdkj ij dksbZ çfrdwy çHkko ugh iM+sxkA
3- mijksä i`"BHkwfe ls Li"V gS fd vkosnd Jh lUrks"k xqIrk iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk
dh fu;qfä iw.kZr% vLFkkbZ ,oa ifjoh{kk/khu gSA vkosnd }kjk çLrqr dEI;wVj
fMIyksek dh vadlwph voS| ,oa dwVjfpr gksus ds dkj.k iVokjh çf'k{k.k ,oa
rRi'pkr iVokjh in gsrq çkjfEHkd fu;qfä ds fy;s gh vgZ vFkok ik= ugha Fkk]
vr% lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds vkns'k fnukad 30 vxLr 1993 ds çko/kkuksa ds
vuqlkj ifjoh{kk/khu iVokjh dks lsok;s 'kklu fgr esa lekIr fd;k tkuk
oS/kkfud ,oa vko';d gSA
dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad LFkk@iV-p-i-@08@ 2012@2347 fnukad 17
flrEcj 2012 df.Mdk 02 esa ;g mYys[k gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ Onkjk çLrqr
vfHkys[k@tkudkjh esa dksbZ =qfV@deh ikbZ tkrh gS] rks ;kfpdkdrkZ dks
çf'k{k.k esa Hkstus dk vkns'k Lor% fujLr ekuk tkosxkA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
24 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
vr% iwoZ esa iVokjh in ij p;u gsrq tkjh dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad LFkk@iV-
p-i-@08@2012@2347 fnukad 17 flrEcj 2012 dk va'kHkkx Jh lUrks"k xqIrk
iq= ukFkwjke xqIrk ds p;u dks fujLr djrs gq;s vH;FkZrk ,oa ik=rk dks fujLr
fd;k tkrk gSA
¼f'kYik xqIrk½
dysDVj
ftyk eqjSuk e-ç-
This Hon'ble Court, after considering the factual and legal
aspects of the matter, was pleased to allow the petition filed by
Sandeep Sharma (supra) and set aside the impugned action of the
respondents. The relevant part of case of Sandeep Sharma (supra) is
quoted below for ready reference and convenience:
14. In the light of aforesaid analysis and judgment, in my
view, the impugned order could not have been passed without
affording opportunity to the petitioners as per CCA Rules. So
far contention of Shri Katare about review of Annexue P/3
dated 17th September, 2012 is concerned, I do not see any merit
in this contention. The order dated 17th September, 2012 is not
passed under the CCA Rules. Hence, question of applying
limitation for review prescribed under the CCA rules does not
arise. I am also unable to hold that petitioners certificates were
approved by the Collector and State Government. The said
contention is devoid of merits. Documents relied on for this
purpose do not support the case of the petitioners in this
regard. Apart from this, when an interim order was prevailing
in WP.4638/2014, the petitioners services could not have been
terminated. For this reason also, impugned orders are bad in
law.
22. The judgment passed in the case of Sandeep Sharma (supra)
has attained finality as the respondents neither preferred any appeal
against the same nor challenged the said order before any higher
forum. Consequently, the findings and principles laid down therein
continue to hold the field and are binding upon the respondents. In
the present case also, the respondents have adopted the very same
defence by adopting the reply of Sandeep Sharma (supra) in present
case which already stands rejected by this Hon'ble Court. In the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
25 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
absence of any distinguishing feature and in view of the fact that the
judgment rendered in the case of Sandeep Sharma has attained
finality, the respondents cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand.
The judgment passed in the case of Shailesh Singh Bhadhoriya
(supra) relied upon by the respondents is distinguishable on facts and
would be applicable only in a case where the concerned University
has categorically declared the degree or certificate to be forged. In
the present case, no such finding has been recorded by the
University/Society; therefore, the said judgment does not apply to the
facts of the present case.
23. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that the exercise
undertaken by the Collector was merely in the nature of
administrative verification, preliminary fact finding regarding the
petitioner's DCA certificate. Such verification could, at best, furnish
material for initiation of disciplinary proceeding; however, it could
not substitute a regular departmental enquiry. The distinction
between a preliminary fact finding exercise and an enquiry into a
specific charge of misconduct assumes significance in the present
case, since the impugned action is founded upon a finding that the
petitioner produced a forged/fabricated certificate. The allegation of
forgery is not merely a motive behind the action, but constitutes its
very foundation, inasmuch as, but for such finding, the petitioner's
selection/candidature would not have been cancelled. Once the
petitioner had already entered Government Service and the
respondents sought to attribute to him serious misconduct involving
fraud and production of forged document, it was incumbent upon the
competent authority to frame a specific charge and established the
same in a duly constituted departmental enquiry under the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966, by leading evidence and affording the petitioner and effective
opportunity to rebut the material relied upon against him. A
verification proceedings wherein material is collected assessed
administratively behind the back of employee cannot be elevated to
the status of proof of misconduct. It is a recognized principle that
findings recorded in a preliminary or fact finding exercise cannot
substitute an enquiry directed against the employee for the specific
misconduct alleged. The same principle applies with greater force in
the present case, particularly when the subsequent communication
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
26 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
dated 08.04.2026 records the petitioner's enrollment particulars and
the availability of his name in the records of the University/Society.
Therefore, in the absence of a regular departmental enquiry, the
Collector could not have conclusively branded the certificate as
forged, fabricated and imposed a punitive and stigmatic civil
consequence upon the petitioner. The impugned order, having been
passed in violation of statutory disciplinary procedure and the
principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
24. In the light of aforesaid analysis and judgment, in my view, the
impugned order could not have been passed without affording
opportunity to the petitioners as per the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The order
dated 30.3.2015 is not passed under the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and can
only be passed after conducting regular departmental inquiry. Apart
from this, respondents have failed to establish that the DCA
certificate of petitioner are forged and once issuing university/Board
confirms that the mark-sheet or degree was genuinely issued by it the
allegation fraud or forged document vanishes and punitive action
based merely departmental suspicion becomes arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition stands
disposed of in the following manner:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.03.2015, whereby the
candidature of the petitioner was cancelled, is hereby set aside.
Since, there is in interim order in favour of petitioner and he is
working so there is no need for reinstatement.
(ii) Respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits
to petitioner forthwith.
(iii) The respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate
action against the petitioner in accordance with law if the
concerned University/Society declares the certificate to be
forged one .”
32. The reliance placed by learned Government Advocate on the judgment
passed in Sher Singh Rawat and others (supra) is of no assistance to the
respondents, as the facts of the said case are different from those of the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
27 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
case. In the said matter, the principal issue was that the respondents had
obtained their PGDCA qualifications through a centre situated at Shivpuri, and
the Court examined the validity of the certificates issued through such a
distance-learning centre. The Court held that the certificates in question were
not valid. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record to establish
that the petitioner obtained her PGDCA qualification through a study centre
situated in M.P. or through any other unauthorised distance-learning centre. On
the contrary, the erstwhile University of Technology and Sciences, Raipur, has
verified the petitioner's certificate as genuine and confirmed that her name is
available in its records. Therefore, in absence of material showing that the
petitioner obtained her qualification through a centre of the nature considered in
Sher Singh Rawat and others (supra) , the said judgment cannot be applied to
the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the learned
Government Advocate on the aforesaid judgment does not advance the case of
the respondents.
33. In view of the subsequent verification and the reasons discussed above,
this Court finds that the impugned order dated 30.04.2014 cannot be sustained in
its present form. The Collector's conclusion regarding the doubtful or forged
nature of the certificate is not supported by sufficient material, particularly in
view of the subsequent confirmation dated 05.02.2026 issued by the University.
34. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated
30.04.2014 passed by the Collector, District Bhind, cancelling the petitioner's
candidature on the ground that her certificate was doubtful or forged, is hereby
quashed .
35. The respondents are directed to appoint petitioner to the post of Patwari in
accordance with law and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner except
backwages on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'.
36. The respondents shall not treat the petitioner's certificate as forged merely
on the basis of the five grounds mentioned in the impugned order. However,
respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner
in accordance with law if the concerned University/Society declares the
certificate to be forged one.
37. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31702
28 WP. No. 4558 of 2014
(3.) Considering the above, present petition also stands disposed of in the light
of order passed in Vandana Soni (supra) and the directions contained in
Vandana Soni (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case also with
full force.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/15/2026
9:57:48 AM