Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

RESERVED
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 511 of 2026
Mukesh Kumar Sharma
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Rai
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Aditendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi
Prakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The writ petition has been instituted, inter alia, seeking
issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated
11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam
Buddha Nagar, whereby the services of the petitioner have been
terminated.
3. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the
functioning of the petitioner as Headmaster of Composite
Vidyalaya, Jewar, Development Block Jewar, District Gautam
Buddha Nagar.

2
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
4. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the
respondents to ensure payment of his regular monthly salary,
along with arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2025 till date, within a
stipulated period.
5. Placing the aforesaid facts on record, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses the following
educational qualifications:-
“(i) The petitioner appeared in the High School Certificate
Examination in the year 1991 from the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, as a student of Krishna
Sahai Gokul Chandra Inter College, Dhanauri Khurd, District
Bulandshahr.
(ii) The petitioner pursued his studies in Class XI during the
academic session 1992–93 from Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera.
(iii) The petitioner obtained a Certificate in Physical Education
during the academic session 1993–94 from Bharati Sharirik
Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman Vyayam Nagar, Amravati,
Maharashtra.
(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner appeared as a regular student in the
Intermediate Certificate Examination for the academic session
1994-95 from the Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, Uttar Pradesh, being a student of Adarsh Inter
College, Ranhera.”
6. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 23.03.1995, which
provided for the appointment of candidates possessing a
Certificate in Physical Education as untrained teachers with a
stipulation for imparting in-service training post-appointment, the
State authorities issued an advertisement dated 27.12.1996
inviting applications from eligible candidates for such

3
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
appointments. The petitioner, being duly eligible, submitted his
application in response thereto.
7. However, as no interview call letter was issued to him, the
petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 11804 of 1997
(Rajesh Singh and two others vs. BSA, Bulandshahr and others),
wherein this Hon’ble Court, vide interim order dated 04.04.1997,
directed consideration of his candidature. In compliance thereof,
the petitioner’s case was considered by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Bulandshahr.
8. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated
24.04.1997, whereby he was appointed as an untrained Assistant
Teacher and posted at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jewar, District
Bulandshahr. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner duly joined his
duties on 25.04.1997.
9. The appointment so granted to the petitioner was as an
untrained Assistant Teacher on payment of a consolidated
honorarium of Rs. 850/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner
was directed to undergo an in-service training course for Basic
Teachers at the District Institute of Education and Training,
Bulandshahr, which he successfully completed in the year 1999.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid training qualification, the
petitioner was granted the regular pay scale applicable to a
trained teacher with effect from 08.03.2000.
11. The petitioner has been working continuously and regularly
since 08.03.2000 as a trained Assistant Teacher and has been
drawing the pay scale applicable to regularly appointed trained
teachers. Initially, the petitioner was serving in District
Bulandshahr; however, upon the creation of District Gautam

4
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
Budhh Nagar as a separate district, the Development Block Jewar
came to be included within its territorial limit. Consequently, the
services of the petitioner stood allocated to District Gautam
Budhh Nagar, where he has been continuing in service thereafter.
12. On the basis of certain complaints, the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, vide order dated 22.07.2020,
constituted a two-member inquiry committee to conduct an
inquiry into the educational certificates of the petitioner and,
simultaneously, directed stoppage of payment of his salary.
13. Notices were issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted
his reply along with relevant documents. Upon due consideration
of the same, the inquiry committee submitted its report dated
03.03.2021, recording a finding that the complaints against the
petitioner were unsubstantiated.
14. Accordingly, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh
Nagar, vide order dated 16.03.2021, restored the payment of
salary to the petitioner.
15. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari again issued a notice dated
24.05.2024 requiring the petitioner to submit his reply on or
before 27.05.2024 with regard to the complaints concerning his
educational qualifications. Thereafter, vide order dated
11.06.2024, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari constituted an inquiry
committee comprising the Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Jewar, and
the Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Bisrakh to conduct an inquiry and
submit its report.
16. The said committee submitted its report dated 27.07.2024,
recording a finding that the complaints against the petitioner were

5
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
unsubstantiated, and further noting that the earlier inquiry had
also returned the same conclusion.
17. Subsequently, a complaint was again made before the
District Magistrate, Gautam Budhh Nagar, in the year 2025,
pursuant to which the Vice Principal, District Institute of
Education and Training, Dankaur, District Gautam Budhh Nagar,
was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer fixed
07.02.2025 as the date of hearing. The petitioner duly
participated in the proceedings; however, the complainant
remained absent.
18. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated
04.04.2025, recording that the petitioner had obtained the
Certificate of Physical Education from Maharashtra during the
academic session 1993-94, which stood duly verified from the
available records and documents. The report, however, also noted
that the petitioner had passed the Intermediate Certificate
Examination in the year 1994.
19. The aforesaid inquiry report was forwarded by the District
Magistrate, Gautam Budhh Nagar, to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Gautam Budhh Nagar, for further action. In pursuance thereof,
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued a notice dated 14.07.2025 to
the petitioner, to which submitted his reply on 28.07.2025 along
with relevant documents.
20. Simultaneously, another notice dated 14.07.2025 was
issued directing stoppage of payment of the petitioner’s salary.
Thereafter, a further notice dated 08.08.2025 was issued by the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari requiring the petitioner to submit his
response within a period of three days.

6
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
21. In compliance, the petitioner submitted a detailed
representation dated 11.08.2025 in response to the notice dated
08.08.2025, enclosing his educational certificates and mark
sheets. He also submitted a further representation dated
19.08.2025 in response to the notice dated 14.07.2025 concerning
stoppage of his salary.
22. The petitioner has not been paid any salary since June,
2025. Despite the fact that the petitioner duly responded to each
notice issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, his salary continued
to be withheld and no final order was passed in the matter.
Thereafter, another notice dated 17.09.2025 was issued, to which
the petitioner submitted his reply on 25.09.2025.
23. Aggrieved by the continued non-payment of salary and the
notices dated 14.07.2025 and 17.09.2025, the petitioner filed
Writ-A No. 15556 of 2025 (Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of
U.P. and others), wherein this Hon’ble Court granted an interim
order dated 16.10.2025. By the said order, the District Basic
Education Officer was directed to complete the inquiry in
accordance with law and to take a final decision within a period
of two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The Court further directed that the petitioner be paid
his salary for the current month and continue to be paid salary
thereafter until a final decision in the inquiry is taken.
24. Despite the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the salary
of the petitioner was not paid. Instead, the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari proceeded to pass an order dated 11.12.2025
terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that his
initial appointment was invalid.

7
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
25. The impugned termination order dated 11.12.2025 is
founded on two principal grounds. Firstly, it records that the
petitioner passed the Intermediate Certificate Examination in the
year 1995, whereas, according to the record, he had already
passed the said examination in the year 1994. Secondly, it alleges
that the petitioner pursued and completed two regular courses
simultaneously during the same academic session 1993–94,
namely, the Certificate of Physical Education and the
Intermediate Certificate Examination in the year 1994.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is contended that repeated
complaints were made against the petitioner, which were duly
inquired into on earlier occasions, and each time the allegations
were found to be unsubstantiated. However, in complete
disregard of the findings recorded in the earlier inquiry reports,
the impugned order has been passed, rendering the same arbitrary
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
27. The petitioner has rendered unblemished service for the
past 29 years, during the said period there has neither been any
complaint against his conduct, nor any allegation that the
educational certificates on the basis of which he was appointed
are forged. In such circumstances, the impugned order is wholly
unsustainable in law and is in clear violation of the principles laid
down by this Hon’ble Court in Anita Rani vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (Special Appeal No. 646 of 2026, decided on
27.01.2026), as well as in Board of Management, Chandra
Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur

8
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
vs. Dr. Samir Kumar Biswas and another (Special Appeal No. 91
of 2026).
28. In Anita Rani (supra), the Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court observed that where the petitioner therein had rendered
service for a considerable period of seven years, and there was no
finding of fraud or manipulation on her part in securing the
appointment, the same could not be cancelled.
29. While deciding the matter in Board of Management,
Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology,
Kanpur vs. Dr. Samir Kumar Biswas and another (Special Appeal
No. 91 of 2026), the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court took
note of the allegation that the petitioners therein were not entitled
to appointment on the post in question as they had availed the
benefit of belonging to a Scheduled Caste in their home State,
which was not recognized in the State of Uttar Pradesh. However,
in the absence of any finding of fraud or misrepresentation on the
part of the petitioners in securing their appointment, the Court
upheld their appointments.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that
there exists no statutory prohibition against obtaining two
certificates in the same academic year. Therefore, the ground
taken in the impugned order to the contrary is wholly
misconceived, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar
Pathak vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2016) 3 SCC
521, submits that the respondents have failed to place on record
any statutory provision or regulation prohibiting simultaneous

9
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
appearance in two examinations. Consequently, the appointment
of the petitioner could not have been cancelled on this ground,
and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court in Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj and another vs.
Lakshmi Shankar Yadav (Special Appeal No. 37 of 2022),
wherein it has been observed that although it may appear
improbable as to how a person could obtain two degrees
simultaneously, such improbability by itself cannot constitute a
valid ground to annul both the degrees. The Court held that there
must exist cogent material and due process, including affording
an opportunity of hearing to the holder of such degrees, before
annulling either one or both of them.
33. In the said case, since one of the degrees relied upon by the
petitioner for selection to the post in question had admittedly not
been cancelled, the Division Bench upheld the validity of the
appointment and held that the same could not be annulled merely
on the ground that two degrees had been obtained simultaneously.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
impugned order has been passed without conducting a regular
departmental inquiry as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education
(Staff) Service Rules, 1973, read with the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The termination of
the petitioner’s services has been effected merely on the basis of
issuance of notices, which do not satisfy the procedural
requirements prescribed under law.

10
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
35. It is contended that in the absence of a duly conducted
disciplinary inquiry, affording full opportunity of hearing and
adherence to the prescribed procedure, the impugned order is in
clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is,
therefore, liable to be set aside.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there
is no dispute with respect to the authenticity of the petitioner’s
educational qualifications, namely, the High School Certificate
obtained in the year 1991, the Certificate of Physical Education
obtained during the academic session 1993-94, and the
Intermediate Certificate obtained in the year 1995. The said
certificates have neither been cancelled nor declared invalid by
any competent authority and continue to hold the field.
37. In such circumstances, it is contended that there was no
occasion or justification for initiating or taking any adverse
action against the petitioner, particularly when the very
qualifications on the basis of which the petitioner was appointed
remain undisputed and valid.
38. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order. It is contended that in the course of inquiry, it has been
found that the petitioner had pursued and completed two regular
courses during the same academic session 1993-94, namely, the
Certificate of Physical Education and the Intermediate
Examination (1994), which fact was not disclosed by him at the
time of seeking appointment.
39. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
the petitioner had initially submitted a Transfer Certificate issued

11
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
from Kisan Sahai Gokulchand, Inter College, Dhanauri Khurd,
for the purpose of seeking admission in Kisan Inter College,
Barsol, from where he is stated to have passed Class XI during
the academic session 1991-92. However, in response to the
notice, the petitioner took a different stand by asserting that he
had passed Class XI during the academic session 1992-93 from
Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera, District Gautam Budhh Nagar.
40. It is further contended that, as per the report dated
24.01.2025 received from Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera, the
petitioner had neither taken admission in the said institution nor
was he enrolled there during the period 1988 to 1993.
41. On the basis of the aforesaid material, it is submitted that
the petitioner had appeared in two examinations as a regular
candidate in the same year, namely, the Certificate of Physical
Education and the Intermediate Examination in the year 1994,
and thereafter again appeared in the Intermediate Examination in
the year 1995. It is thus contended that by concealing these facts
and by simultaneously pursuing two courses, the petitioner
secured his initial appointment. It is further urged that for the
purpose of subsequent benefits as a trained teacher, the petitioner
relied upon his Intermediate mark sheet of the year 1995.
42. In view of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner
secured his initial appointment by concealing material facts,
particularly the fact of having appeared in and passed two
examinations in the same year. Accordingly, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief from this Hon’ble Court.
43. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and upon a careful scrutiny of the record, this Court

12
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
finds that the fulcrum of the impugned action rests upon the
allegation of simultaneous acquisition of two qualifications.
However, neither in the impugned order nor in the course of
arguments has any statutory provision, rule, or regulation been
brought to the notice of this Court which proscribes a candidate
from pursuing or obtaining two qualifications in the same
academic session.
44. The legal position in this regard stands authoritatively
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak
(supra), wherein it has been unequivocally held that in the
absence of any statutory embargo, simultaneous pursuit of
courses cannot constitute a valid ground for disqualification. The
said principle has been echoed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Board of Basic Education and another vs. Arvind
Prakash Dwivedi and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 898
of 2020), holding that simultaneous acquisition of qualifications
at the relevant point of time was permissible and cannot, by itself,
render an appointment illegal.
45. Further, in Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj and
another vs. Lakshmi Shankar Yadav (Special Appeal No. 37 of
2022), the Division Bench has lucidly observed that even if the
acquisition of two degrees in the same academic session may
appear improbable, such improbability, in the absence of cogent
material and due process culminating in annulment of such
degrees by a competent authority, cannot furnish a lawful basis
for invalidating an appointment. In the present case, it is an
admitted position that none of the petitioner’s educational
qualifications have been set aside or invalidated.

13
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
46. This Court also finds that the impugned order is
conspicuously bereft of any categorical finding of fraud,
misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents on the part
of the petitioner. In the absence of such a foundational finding,
the drastic consequence of termination, particularly after the
petitioner has rendered nearly three decades of continuous and
unblemished service, is wholly disproportionate and legally
unsustainable. The Division Bench of this Court in Anita Rani
(supra) has held that long continuance in service, coupled with
the absence of fraud or deceit, operates as a significant equitable
consideration against annulment of appointment.
47. This Court finds that long standing appointment should not
be disturbed in absence of any fraud. The aforesaid has been held
by Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind,
(2001) 1 SCC 4, wherein the caste certificate of the petitioner
was questioned, however, on the aforesaid principle, the
appointment of the petitioner was not disturbed as the certificate
of the petitioner therein was accepted with open eyes by the
respondents.
48. Equally significant is the procedural infirmity vitiating the
impugned order. It is evident that no regular departmental inquiry,
as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service
Rules, 1973 read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999, has been conducted. The termination
has been effected merely on the basis of notices, without
formulation of charges, without adducing evidence, and without
affording the petitioner a meaningful and effective opportunity of
hearing. Such a course of action is in flagrant violation of the

14
WRIA No. - 511 of 2026
principles of natural justice, as expounded by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772.
49. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s educational
credentials, namely, the High School Certificate (1991),
Certificate of Physical Education (1993-94), and Intermediate
Certificate (1995), continue to hold the field, having never been
annulled or invalidated by any competent authority. In such
circumstances, the substratum of the impugned action is rendered
wholly untenable.
50. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 is
vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, procedural
impropriety, and violation of settled principles of law. The same,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
51. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, District- Gautam Budhh Nagar, is hereby
quashed.
52. The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
April 21, 2026
Rahul Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad