Javed Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 5 Others

Reserved on 06.04.2026
Delivered on 29.04.2026
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1632 of 2013
Javed Khan
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secry. and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Siddharth Khare, Parashar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur (S.C.)
Along With:
1. Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4
others)
2. Special Appeal No.388 of 2014 (Mustaq Ullaha v. State of U.P. and 2
others)
Chief Justice’s Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

2
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
(Per : Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellants
and Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in all
the appeals.
2. Whereas Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 arises out of order dated
03.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No.54819 of
2013 (Javed Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 others), Special Appeal No.1634
of 2013 raises challenge to an identical order passed in Writ A No. 54821
of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others) and Special Appeal
No.388 of 2014 arises out of order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Writ A
No.3689 of 2014 (Mustaq Ullaha v. State of U.P. and others).
3. Since controversy involved in all these appeals is identical, they
are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of
convenience, Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 is being treated as the
leading one, however, slightly distinctive features of the remaining two
special appeals shall be taken note of by us.
4. By the order dated 03.10.2013, learned Single Judge has dismissed
Writ A No. 54819 of 2013 upholding the order dated 16.09.2013 passed
by Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra, whereby the appellant’s
representation against termination of his services had been rejected on
the ground that the documents submitted by him pertaining to his
educational qualifications had been found forged and fictitious in the
inquiry conducted by the respondents.
5. Brief facts are that the appellant, after undergoing the process of
selection, was appointed as Excise Constable by appointment order
dated 14.10.2010 and he joined his duties. On 30/31.05.2013, the Deputy
Commissioner Excise, Agra terminated his services against which he
preferred a representation before the Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra

3
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
Region, Agra and also filed Writ Petition No.36360 of 2013 (Javed Khan
v. State of U.P. and 2 others). The Writ Petition was disposed of by order
dated 09.07.2013 with liberty to the appellant to approach the competent
authority with supportive documents with a further direction to the
authority to take a reasoned decision.
6. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant
preferred another representation dated 22.07.2013 before the authority
annexing therewith 87 documents. All the representations were rejected
by order dated 16.09.2013, against which the writ petition giving rise to
the present appeal was filed and dismissed.
7. The authority has, after providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner-appellant and after considering the explanation submitted by
him and based upon the documents, found the certificate of ‘Adhikari
Pariksha’ obtained by the petitioner in the year 2008 from Gurukul
Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura (in short ‘the University’) to be
forged, fabricated and invalid. It was further observed that the ‘Adhikari
Pariksha’ allegedly conducted by the said University was not equivalent
to High School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary
Education and, consequently, termination of appellant was not interfered
with.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions that the
order dated 16.09.2013 was based upon the documents, copies whereof
were not served upon him and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained.
On merits, it is contended that the appellant had produced marksheet and
certificate of ‘Adhikari Pariksha’ (High School)-2008 issued by the
University. Learned counsel also referred the record of marks obtained
by various students including the appellant and submission has been
made that once there was no dispute regarding validity of ‘Adhikari
Pariksha’ (High School) conducted by the said University up to the year
2008, but it was declared invalid only after 2008, as held by this Court in
Akanksha Gautam v. State of U.P. and others : 2012 (6) ADJ 107,

4
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
declaring the appellant’s marksheet and certificate, which pertained to
year 2008, as invalid, was per se illegal.
9. It is further submitted that the view taken by the authority while
rejecting the representation that the ‘Adhikari Pariksha’ allegedly
conducted by the said University was not equivalent to High School
Examination conducted by the U.P. Board of Secondary Education, is in
teeth of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dhanpal and others v.
State of U.P. and others : 2013 (8) ADJ 723 (FB) and, for this reason
also, the order impugned in the writ petition was liable to be set aside.
Reliance has also been placed upon judgment of this Court in Riazul
Hasan v. State of U.P. and others : 2024 (6) ALJ 542.
10. It is lastly submitted that once the appellant was duly appointed on
the post of Excise Constable, termination of his services being stigmatic,
could not be resorted to without holding a full fledged departmental
inquiry.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that it
is not a case where appellant was not afforded any opportunity of
hearing, rather the order dated 16.09.2013 itself indicates that not only
his explanation was considered but also he was personally heard and the
order was passed based upon inquiry conducted by the department,
wherein it stood reflected that no academic activities were held in the
Institution wherefrom the appellant had obtained certificate, for the
period w.e.f. 2008 onwards nor any examinations had been conducted
during the said period. Further submission has been made that during
inquiry, no record of even recognition allegedly granted to B.L. Vidya
Mandir, Devnagar, Jheel ka Purva, District-Banda on 16.04.2005 had
been found and, therefore, conclusion drawn by the authority that
documents produced by the appellant were forged and fabricated, cannot
be faulted.
12. It is further submitted that fraud vitiates everything and once it has
been found that the appellant had obtained appointment based upon

5
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
forged and fabricated documents, no departmental inquiry was required.
Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.
Vishwantha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others : (2004) 2 SCC 105.
13. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
14. The order dated 16.09.2013, impugned in the writ petition was
passed in furtherance of the order passed by this Court in Writ A
No.36360 of 2013, wherein this Court had directed the authority to take
a reasoned decision on appellant approaching the authority. The order
dated 16.09.2013 clearly indicates that the appellant was granted
opportunity to offer his explanation and for personal hearing, 27.06.2013
was fixed, on which date the appellant filed various documents.
15. The authority has observed that before the documents presented
by the appellant could be verified, he preferred writ petition before the
High Court and during the course of verification of the marksheet of the
appellant pertaining to the examinations of 2008, it stood revealed that
all the evidences produced by the appellant had not been issued by or
received from the University. The order further indicates that no
Registrar was appointed in the Institution during the relevant period of
time, however, the letter pad and even seal of Registrar had been utilized
for the purposes of procuring documents.
16. It has further been recorded that the officer had personally
contacted the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P., 5- Meerabai Road, Lucknow
and, on inquiry, it was found that no head of the said Sabha was
appointed. In relation to the same, letter dated 16.04.2009 issued by
Justice S.C. Verma, retired Judge of this Court, who was acting as
receiver in the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, was relied on, wherein it was
indicated that on account of managerial dispute in relation to the Society,
no academic activities had been conducted in the Institution or in any
related Colleges and no examinations had been held.

6
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
17. The order further indicates that a document of recognition to the
B.L. Vidya Mandir, Dev Nagar, Jheel ka Purva, District Banda, allegedly
dated 16.04.2005 had been produced, however, on query, the Vice
Chancellor of the University had informed that the documents did not
pertain to the Institution nor was there any evidence to demonstrate that
the same were issued from the Institution and, consequently, the
documents produced were found to be forged.
18. After recording various findings regarding production of forged
and fabricated documents by the appellant, the authority has concluded
that the appellant had procured appointment on the post of Excise
Constable based upon forged and fabricated documents and, further,
‘Adhikari Pariksha’ allegedly conducted by the said University was not
equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the Board of
Secondary Education.
19. As far as the documents referred to by learned counsel for the
appellant to demonstrate as if the marksheet and certificate of ‘Adhikari
Pariksha’ held in 2008 were issued to the appellant and that the record of
the University reflects his participation in the examinations held, along
with other candidates, we could have elaborated the implication of the
contents of those documents, however, once we are satisfied that the
documents have already been found as forged and fabricated pursuant to
extensive inquiry held by the authorities which we are not inclined to
discard merely on the plea that copies of the documents relied upon were
not served upon the appellant, we need not delve into the contents of the
certificates or other documents.
20. The relied upon documents form part of the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondents and the Court deems it appropriate to refer
to one of such documents, being letter dated 16.04.2009 issued by
(Retired) Justice S.C. Verma, indicating issuance of fabricated
certificate. The said letter reads as under:-

7
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. :
(2012) 8 SCC 748 held that fraudulently obtained orders of appointment
could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or
could be recalled by the employer and, in such cases, merely because the
employee has continued in service for a number of years on the basis of
such fraudulently obtained employment, he cannot get any equity in his
favour or any estoppel against the employer.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of R. Vishwantha Pillai
(supra), has laid down that where an appointment in service had been
acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such appointment is no
appointment in law and in such a situation, Article 311 of the
Constitution of India is not attracted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

8
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
reiterated the view taken by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in
Ishwar Dayal Sah v. State of Bihar : 1987 Lab. I.C. 390 and observed
that in that case, the employee had obtained appointment by producing a
caste certificate indicating that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste
community which, later on, was found to be false and the appointment
was cancelled. It was contended by the employee before the Patna High
Court that the cancellation of appointment amounted to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and,
therefore, void and that he could not be terminated from service without
holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing with
the above contention, the High Court had held that if the very
appointment to the civil posts is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or
illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under
Article 311 of the Constitution can possibly flow and if the very entry or
the crossing of threshold into the area of the civil service of the State or
the Union is put in issue and door is barred against him, the cloak of
protection under Article 311 is not attracted.
23. On similar lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486,
has held that the production of a fake document in a selection process is
sufficient to invoke action, notwithstanding the intention of the
applicant. Similarly, in Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran : AIR
1996 SC 686, it has been held that when an appointment is procured on
the basis of bogus and forged causal labourer service card, it would
amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. Therefore, it
would create no equity in favour of the workman or any estoppel against
the employer and for such misconduct, termination would be justified
without any domestic inquiry.
24. It is well settled that fraud vitiates even the most solemn act and
fraud and justice never dwell together. Reference, in this regard, can be
made to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Singh v.
Savitri Devi and others : (2003) 8 SCC 319, The State of Andhra

9
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
Pradesh & Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao : JT 2005 (6) SC 391, A.V.
Papayya Sastry & others v. Government of A.P. & Ors. : JT 2007 (4) SC
186 and Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & others : JT
2008 (3) SC 452.
25. As far as arguments based upon the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra) qua equivalence of ‘Adhikari
Pariksha’ with High School examination conducted by the U.P. Board of
Secondary Education, we need not go into the said aspect of the matter
as we are satisfied that once the appellant had secured appointment
based upon forged and fabricated certificates; other aspects of the matter
including alleged equivalence of the two qualifications and
examinations, become irrelevant.
26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
27. The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013
28. This special appeal is directed against order dated 03.10.2013
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No. 54821 of
2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others).
29. The facts of the present case are identical to the one involved in
Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 as also submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that termination of
services of the appellant on the ground that he had obtained appointment
based upon forged and fabricated documents, was in accordance with
law and the learned Single Judge has not erred in dismissing the writ
petition.
30. For the reasons stated in the order deciding Special Appeal
No.1632 of 2013, the present appeal also stands dismissed.

10
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
Special Appeal No.388 of 2014
31. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2014
whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No.3689 of 2014
(Mustaq Ullah v. State of U.P. and 2 others).
32. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2013
whereby the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Mirzapur, Region Mirzapur
had terminated services of the appellant on identical grounds of forged
certificates and marksheets having been utilized for the purposes of
obtaining appointment on the post of Excise Constable.
33. Present appeal was filed subsequent to filing of Special Appeals
No.1632 of 2013 and 1634 of 2013 and reliance was placed on interim
orders dated 30.10.2013 passed therein. Apparently, the cause agitated in
the present appeal is identical to the one involved in two other special
appeals and once no distinctive features are apparent on the face of
record as far as obtaining appointment based upon the documents issued
from the University etc., as already discussed in our order passed in
Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013, we are inclined to take same view in
the present appeal also.
34. We may, however, mention that though in other two appeals, the
writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge by one page order,
the order impugned in the present appeal is quite detailed one wherein
the learned Single Judge, after discussing the documents on record, has
recorded findings regarding production of forged certificates and other
documents and, after referring to various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court on the proposition that fraud and justice never dwell together and
that in case the appointment has been obtained based upon forged and
fabricated documents, services can be terminated without holding
inquiry, we find absolutely no error, either of fact or law, in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.

11
SPLA No. - 1632 of 2013
35. Consequently, the present appeal also fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
April 29, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad