Shiv Bachan Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru Secry Basic Education Lko. And Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 220 of 2011




Shiv Bachan Ram
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secry Basic Education Lko.
And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Deepak K. Jaiswal, Deepak Kumar
Jaiswal, Hare Ram Pandey, S.K. Singh
Paliwal, Shishir Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

AFR
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Garima Prashad, J.)

Civil Misc. Delay Contonation Application No.64342 of 2011
1. There is delay of 66 days in filing the present special appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the delay
condonation application, the delay in filing the special appeal is
condoned.
3. The delay condonation application is allowed.
Appeal
4. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
09.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 34650 of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the
petitioner–appellant was dismissed, and the order of termination passed
by the District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar was upheld, and
further directions were issued for lodging an FIR against the petitioner as
well as for recovery, along with imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.
50,000/-.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an

SPLAD No. 220 of 2011
2
Assistant Teacher on 31.03.1995 by the District Basic Education Officer,
Siddharth Nagar at Primary Pathshala, Balua. The petitioner claimed to
have passed High School, Intermediate and B.T.C. examinations and to
have submitted all relevant testimonials at the time of selection. On
06.12.2005, the petitioner was required to produce original mark-sheets
and certificates, which were submitted. However, on 27.03.2010, a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that, upon verification
from the Principal of P.N. Intermediate College, Mardah, Ghazipur, it was
found that Roll No. 335639, as mentioned in the petitioner’s Intermediate
mark-sheet, had not been allotted to any candidate, and thus the mark-
sheet appeared to be fictitious. The petitioner was also called upon to
explain as to why an FIR be not lodged against him.
6. When the petitioner failed to appear, a further notice dated 16.04.2010
was issued. The petitioner thereafter responded on 22.04.2010, enclosing
a certificate purportedly issued by the Principal stating that he had passed
the Intermediate examination in 1983 with the same roll number.
Subsequently, by order dated 10.05.2010, the petitioner’s appointment
was cancelled with retrospective effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the
writ petition.
7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant filed a
supplementary affidavit annexing another copy of the Intermediate mark-
sheet. Upon directions of the learned Single Judge, the said mark-sheet
was verified, and the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.,
Allahabad, vide report dated 08.11.2010, categorically stated that in the
year 1983, no candidate in P.N. Intermediate College, Mardah, Ghazipur
was allotted Roll No. 335639, and thus the mark-sheet relied upon by the
petitioner was found forged.
8. The learned Single Judge recorded that learned counsel for the
petitioner was unable to dispute these facts and concluded that the
petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of a forged mark-sheet. In
such circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed with exemplary costs
of Rs. 50,000/- as a deterrent, the termination order was upheld, and a
direction was issued to lodge an FIR against the petitioner in terms of the
order dated 10.05.2010.
9. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed, primarily on the ground
that the learned Single Judge relied upon the verification report without

SPLAD No. 220 of 2011
3
granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the same. It is
further submitted that no proper inquiry into the alleged forgery was
conducted and that the report could not have been relied upon without
affording an opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that the petitioner
neither committed forgery nor misused any document, and that the action
taken is violative of the principles of natural justice. The imposition of
exemplary costs is also challenged on the ground that no opportunity was
afforded to explain his conduct.
10. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge exceeded
the scope of writ jurisdiction by directing lodging of an FIR against the
petitioner and ordering recovery of salary received by him as an Assistant
Teacher. It is contended that the impugned order is non-speaking and
unreasoned, and therefore liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the
appellant was rightly terminated by order dated 10.05.2010, as the
Intermediate mark-sheet relied upon by him was found to be forged and
fictitious. It is submitted that no such roll number was ever allotted to any
student in the concerned institution. It is further contended that the
appellant has failed to establish his bona fides and has, in fact, produced a
false certificate before the Court. The District Basic Education Officer,
therefore, rightly directed lodging of an FIR and recovery of the salary
paid to the petitioner.
12. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.
13. From the record, it is evident that the appellant had obtained
appointment as Assistant Teacher on the strength of educational
qualifications which included the Intermediate examination. A specific
doubt having arisen with regard to the genuineness of the Intermediate
mark-sheet submitted by him, the matter was verified from the concerned
institution as well as from the competent examining authority. The
consistent position emerging from such verification is that Roll No.
335639, which forms the basis of the appellant’s claim, was not allotted to
any candidate of P.N. Intermediate College, Mardah, Ghazipur in the
relevant year. The appellant, despite opportunity, failed to produce any
credible material of unimpeachable character to dislodge the said finding.
14. The submission that no inquiry was held in accordance with law also

SPLAD No. 220 of 2011
4
does not merit acceptance. The present is not a case of misconduct
committed during service requiring a full-fledged departmental inquiry
into disputed conduct in the ordinary course. The very foundation of
appointment was under scrutiny. Where an appointment is obtained on the
basis of a forged or fictitious educational certificate, the employer is
entitled to verify the authenticity of such document, and once the
document is found to be false, the appointment itself becomes voidable at
the instance of the employer, being founded on misrepresentation and
fraud. In such a case, verification of the certificate by the competent
authority is sufficient, and the appellant was afforded an opportunity to
explain.
15. The record further shows that a show cause notice dated 27.03.2010
was issued to the appellant specifically informing him that the
Intermediate mark-sheet produced by him was found doubtful and
fictitious, and he was also called upon to explain why an FIR be not
lodged. When he did not initially appear, a further notice dated
16.04.2010 was issued. The appellant thereafter responded on 22.04.2010
and sought to support his stand by filing a certificate allegedly issued by
the Principal. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of cancellation was
passed behind his back or without notice. Adequate opportunity was
afforded to the appellant to explain the genuineness of the document
relied upon by him.
16. Even before the learned Single Judge, the appellant was given further
latitude, inasmuch as the mark-sheet annexed along with the
supplementary affidavit was got independently verified pursuant to
directions of the Court. The report submitted by the Secretary,
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad clearly negated the
appellant’s claim. The learned Single Judge has recorded that learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to dispute the said factual
position. In such circumstances, the contention that the report was relied
upon without opportunity is not borne out from the record.
17. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is, therefore,
without merit. The principles of natural justice are intended to ensure
fairness and cannot be invoked to protect a claim founded on a forged
document. In the present case, the appellant was informed of the
allegation and was given an opportunity to respond. The matter was also

SPLAD No. 220 of 2011
5
independently verified from the competent statutory authority. In such
circumstances, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. Mere
invocation of natural justice, in the absence of any credible rebuttal to the
verification report, does not advance the case of the appellant.
18. The contention that the learned Single Judge recorded findings on
forgery without a regular trial also cannot be accepted in the facts of the
present case. The writ court was not trying the appellant for an offence. It
was examining whether the employer was justified in cancelling an
appointment obtained on the basis of a document which stood verified to
be fictitious. For that purpose, the verification reports from the competent
authorities were sufficient material. The learned Single Judge was fully
justified in testing the validity of the appellant’s continuance in service on
the basis of such record.
19. It is trite that fraud vitiates every solemn act. An appointment secured
on the basis of a forged educational certificate does not confer any
enforceable right upon the appointee, and no equity can be claimed on the
basis of long continuance in service. Length of service cannot sanitize an
entry which is tainted at inception. Once the foundational qualification
itself is found to be supported by a forged mark-sheet, the order
cancelling the appointment cannot be faulted.
20. Insofar as the challenge to the imposition of exemplary costs is
concerned, we find that the appellant not only questioned the termination
but persisted in asserting the genuineness of the very same mark-sheet
and even brought on record a certificate in support thereof, which also
failed to withstand verification. In such circumstances, the learned Single
Judge cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in imposing exemplary
costs so as to deter abuse of the process of Court. The amount imposed
also cannot be said to be so disproportionate as to warrant appellate
interference.
21. As regards the direction for lodging of FIR, we find that once the
competent authority had already, while passing the order dated
10.05.2010, contemplated such action on the basis of use of a forged
educational certificate for obtaining public employment, the learned
Single Judge merely directed consequential action in light of the facts
which had emerged on record. No exception can be taken to such
direction, particularly where the allegation pertains to procurement of

SPLAD No. 220 of 2011
6
public employment on the basis of a forged public document.
22. Similarly, the contention that the learned Single Judge exceeded
jurisdiction in directing recovery also does not persuade us to interfere. If
salary has been drawn on the strength of an appointment obtained by
fraud, the matter of recovery would remain open to be dealt with by the
competent authority in accordance with law. Mere issuance of such
direction does not render the judgment unsustainable, particularly when
the appellant’s very entry into service has been found to be founded on a
forged document.
23. We are thus of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
committed no error in upholding the order dated 10.05.2010 cancelling
the appellant’s appointment. The findings recorded are based on
verification from the competent authorities, and the appellant has failed to
demonstrate either any factual error in such findings or any legal infirmity
in the procedure adopted.
24. The order under appeal does not suffer from perversity, arbitrariness,
violation of natural justice, or any jurisdictional error warranting
interference in intra-court appeal.
25. The special appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
26. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. There shall be no order as to
costs in this appeal.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
April 9, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad