Preeti Jaiswal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others

A.F.R.
Reserved on: 16.02.2026
Delivered on: 03.04.2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11875 of 2025
Preeti Jaiswal
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar (nagvanshi),
C.S.C., Chandan Sharma
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.4 and 5, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 and perused the record.
2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

2
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur.
(ii) A writ, order or direction of suitable nature restraining
the respondents from interfering with the working of the
petitioner as Assistant Teacher at Prathmik Vidyalay
Jangal Dumri No.1, Development Block Bhathat, District
Gorakhpur and to pay the petitioner her full monthly
salary of the said post regularly every month.
(iii) Any other relief as this Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.”
3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the educational qualification of the
petitioner is High School, Intermediate, Bachelor of Arts Degree,
Bachelor of Education and Special BTC Training Course, 2008. In
the year 2008 selection proceedings were undertaken by the State
Government for admission to Special BTC Training Course 2008
to such candidates who possessed some other teacher’s training
qualification.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner also applied in pursuance thereof,
and was selected and underwent training at District Institute of
Education & Training, Gorakhpur. On successful completion of
Special BTC Training Course 2008, the petitioner was issued a
certificate dated 21.12.2009. Upon declaration of the result of
Special BTC Training Course, the petitioner became entitled for
automatic appointment as an Assistant Teacher, accordingly, based
upon the result of Special BTC Training Course, 2008, the
petitioner was issued appointment order dated 06.02.2010.

3
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
5. The petitioner forthwith joined and thereafter has been
working continuously up to the satisfaction of her superiors. The
work and conduct of the petitioner has been fully satisfactory. The
petitioner was at the relevant point of time was posted at Prathmik
Vidyalaya Jangal Dumri No.1, Development Block Bhathat,
District Gorakhpur. The petitioner has been paid her regular
monthly salary up to the month of June 2025.
6. The petitioner passed her Bachelor of Arts Course as a
student of St. Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur, affiliated to Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (in short
‘Gorakhpur University’). The aforesaid degree as awarded to the
petitioner was duly verified by the Examination Controller,
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. It was duly verified that the
petitioner had secured 1175 marks out of 1800 marks in aggregate
of 3 years Bachelor of Arts Course.
7. Without there being any material against the petitioner, she
was placed under suspension by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Gorakhpur on 19.12.2019 and a charge sheet dated 26.12.2019
was issued. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed Writ A
No.8607 of 2020 (Preeti Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. & Others) and
vide order dated 15.10.2020 the writ petition was finally disposed
of directing to conclude the inquiry proceedings within a period of
30 days from that date, failing which the suspension order of the
petitioner would stand revoked.
8. The Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Bhathat, sent a communication
dated 10.01.2020 addressed to the Principal St. Andrew’s College,
Gorakhpur, seeking verification of Bachelor of Arts Degree of the
petitioner. In response, the Principal of the aforesaid college made

4
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
an endorsement to the effect that according to the tabulation sheet
made available by the University, the petitioner secured 1175
marks out of 1800 marks and passed her Bachelor of Arts
Examination in First Division. The endorsement dated 11.01.2020
finds place on the communication of Khand Shiksha Adhikari,
Bhathat.
9. On 18.01.2020, the Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Bhathat, sent a
communication to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, giving
an opinion that no discrepancy is reflected. However, it would be
appropriate to seek verification of the Graduation Degree of the
petitioner from the University.
10. The Vice Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur, proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Committee to
conduct verification of the mark sheet of the petitioner. The
Committee so constituted was headed by a professor of the
University with three other members. The Committee met on
30.09.2022 and proceeded to submit a report dated 30.09.2022 for
consideration and decision by the Examination Committee of the
University. The report as placed by the Committee dated
30.09.2022 mentions about the verification of the marks of the
petitioner based upon the counter foil made available by the
confidential section of the University, however, does not dispute
the marks awarded to the petitioner are in conformity with the
tabulation chart maintained by the University.
11. The Examination Controller of the University based on the
aforesaid report dated 30.09.2022 of the Committee constituted by
the Gorakhpur University submitted a report dated 18.09.2024
which was followed by a further report dated 21.05.2024. Though,

5
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
the Committee while placing the report before the Examination
Controller of the University has directed the Examination
Controller to pass appropriate orders and place the same before the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur and Incharge STF, Gorakhpur.
Till date, no decision has been taken at the level of the
Examination Committee on the basis of the report dated
30.09.2022.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that degree so
awarded by the respondent-University can be cancelled or revoked
only on the basis of decision of the Executive Council of the
University and this decision can be made only on the basis of
limited grounds enumerated under the State Universities Act,
1973. Neither the Executive Council nor the Examination
Committee has taken any decision on the Bachelor of Arts Degree
of the petitioner.
13. In between the Special Task Force, Gorakhpur appears to
have submitted some report dated 01.04.2024. Another report
dated 14.02.2025 followed by a further report dated 21.05.2024
was sent by the Examination Controller.
14. On 20.08.2024, a notice was issued by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Gorakhpur, fixing 26.08.2024 as the date of hearing, and
the petitioner was required to remain present. In response to the
aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed an application dated
26.08.2024 requesting for supply of documents referred to therein.
Thereafter, another notice dated 19.10.2024 was issued by the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, fixing 29.10.2024 as the date
of hearing. The aforesaid notice was accompanied by a copy of the
proceedings of the Inquiry Committee of Gorakhpur University

6
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
dated 30.09.2022, letters of Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur
dated 21.05.2024 and 18.09.2024 and the report of Special Task
Force dated 26.07.2024. The petitioner in response of the aforesaid
notice filed a detailed representation dated 29.10.2024. Against the
notice dated 19.10.2024, however, she filed a Writ Petition No.77
of 2025 (Preeti Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others), and the
aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated
17.02.2025 directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice
dated 19.10.2024 within a period of three weeks from that date
before the concerned respondent who shall inturn take decision in
the matter strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months thereafter.
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a fresh notice dated
01.03.2025 making partial amendment to the notice dated
19.10.2024 was issued fixing 17.03.2025 as the date of hearing. In
response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed a
representation dated 17.03.2025. Another notice dated 27.05.2025
was issued by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, which was a
fourth notice to the petitioner to which a detailed reply and
representation dated 09.06.2025 was submitted by her.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the
Controller of Examination has verified the mark sheet of the
petitioner on 03.02.2014 and has forwarded the verification report
dated 03.02.2014 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur
through Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Bhathat, vide letter dated
05.02.2014.
17. He further submits that on the basis of application filed
under Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner received the

7
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
information that by communication dated 22.06.2021 issued by the
Examination Controller it has been informed that Tabulation
Register is maintained as a permanent record, whereas the counter
foil/mark slip is retained only for a period of one year. It was
further informed that the verification of the results is undertaken
from the Tabulation Register. Evaluated answer sheets are retained
for a period of two years or till holding of the examination
thereafter. It was also informed by communication dated
04.09.2024 by the Principal of St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur,
responded that the marks are entered in the format of the mark
sheet made available from the University on the basis of marks
contained in the Tabulation Register. By communication dated
18.10.2024, the Principal of the College intimated that the
Tabulation Register was maintained by Gorakhpur University and
verification of marks was only possible from the said Tabulation
Register.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on
14.02.2025 the Examination Controller proceeded to submit a
report to the effect that the earlier verification report dated
01.04.2024 was found to be erroneous and, accordingly, a
modified report was placed on 21.05.2024. Thereafter, on
28.07.2025, an order was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Gorakhpur, purporting to cancel the appointment of the petitioner
with effect from the date of her initial appointment with further
directions for lodging the First Information Report against the
petitioner and for computation of salary for effecting a recovery of
the salary from the year 2010 as paid to the petitioner.

8
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
19. The aforesaid order dated 28.07.2025, which is the order
impugned has been challenged on the following grounds:-
(i). That no regular departmental proceedings were initiated
prior to passing of the order impugned.
(ii). That the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur has not
conducted any oral hearing at his own level or by appointing any
inquiry officer in accordance with Rule 7 of U.P. Govt. Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short ‘Rules of 1999’).
(iii). It is settled position of law that prior to imposition of major
penalty like termination of service, a proper inquiry must be
conducted in accordance with the procedure as provided under
Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.
(iv). None of the mark sheet of the petitioner suffer from any
infirmity.
(v). None of the notices have been given to the petitioner making
allegations to the effect that the mark sheet of the petitioner could
not be verified by Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur, because entries in the mark sheet is being compared
with some counter foil claim to be available at St. Andrews
College, Gorakhpur, on the basis of which a doubt is cast upon the
petitioner for giving a forged mark sheet. As informed, the mark
sheet are to be verified from the tabulation chart as maintained and
there exists no discrepancy in the petitioner’s mark sheet as
compared with the tabulation sheet. There is no justification in
passing any order on the basis of some counter foil obtained from
St. Andrews College. The petitioner has worked for almost 18
years and cancellation of appointment by passing the order

9
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
impugned after so many years, is arbitrary and bad in the eyes of
law.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written
submissions wherein challenging the order impugned the
following grounds have been taken:-
21. The objection which has been taken with respect to Bachelor
of Arts Degree obtained by the petitioner in the year 2000 being
student of St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur affiliated to Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. There does
not exist any allegation that the petitioner was not a student of St.
Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur, however, it has been stated that the
marks entered in the mark sheet of IIIrd year of B.A. Course are
inflated. Such objection is being raised on the basis of comparison
of the mark sheet of the petitioner from the counter foil available
with the Gorakhpur University. He submits that despite the fact
that the marks entered in the mark sheet of the petitioner tallies
with the marks entered in the tabulation register maintained by the
St. Andrew’s College as well as by the Gorakhpur University. The
aforesaid objection is arbitrary as the tabulation register of the
University and the College are the most authentic documents and
any doubt with regard to the correctness of the marks can be
resolved on the basis of the entries in the tabulation register only.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
Bachelor of Arts Degree/mark-sheet awarded to the petitioner
continues to remain intact, hence, the impugned order could not
have been passed unless the aforesaid is cancelled or revoked.
There also does not exist any justification on the part of Basic

10
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
Shiksha Adhikari to pass the order impugned basing upon the
mark sheet which is still intact.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
appointment of the petitioner is on the basis of Special BTC
Training Certificate 2008, which is also intact, therefore, his
appointment could not be cancelled on non existing grounds. The
power of canceling the degree awarded to the petitioner lies with
the Executive Council, however, there is no such decision on the
basis of which the BSA could have proceeded to pass the order
impugned. The respondents have tried to justified the entire action
and have passed the order impugned on the basis of inquiry report
of the Inquiry Committee dated 30.09.2022, minutes of the
meeting of Examination Committee dated 21.08.2024, award sheet
of BA-III, 2000, report of Examination Controller dated
21.05.2024, 18.09.2024 and 14.02.2025 as well as the report of the
Special Task Force dated 26.07.2014. None of the aforesaid
documents so relied upon demonstrate any decision for cancelling
the degree/mark sheet already awarded to the petitioner.
23. The report of the Inquiry Committee (constituted by order
dated 14.10.2025) by the Examination Controller contains a recital
that the said report was being forwarded to the Examination
Committee for further action. The extract of the aforesaid is as
follows:-
“ तदनुसा  जाँ
समिमितक आख्यापक्षासमिमितको संदर्भित है।संदमितहै।
प क्षा समिमित क मिनर्णयानुसा सत्यापन आख्या बमिसक मिक्षा
अमि!का  गो संदर्भित है। खपु औ प्ा फ ल्ड इकाईइकाई गो संदर्भित है। खपु को संदर्भित है।
, STF ,
प् मि+तमिकयाजाय। ”

11
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
24. The Examination Committee in its meeting dated 21.08.2024
has mentioned as under:-
“16 कु, प् मितजायसवा. पुत् ागपमि/ गुप्ताब, ए ० एवम बी०, ए ० एवम बी०व ब,
ए ० एवम बी०ड इकाईदो संदर्भित है।न2 क प्कर्ण3 गमि4तजाँ
समिमितक संस्तुमितमिदनांक
30/09/2022 को संदर्भित है।प क्षासमिमितक सम्ुखप्स्तुतमिकय जान प
मिव!ा ।
मिनर्ण ”
यसमिमितजाँ
आख्याए ० एवम बी०वंकृत्यकायवाह स संसूमि
तहुई।
25. From the aforesaid, it is clear that no decision has been taken
by the Examination Committee which also does not have any such
powers. The report of the examination controller and Special Task
Force as forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is based on an
inquiry report dated 30.09.2022, which itself cannot be taken as
decision of the Examination Committee.
26. As per the report of the inquiry committee dated 30.09.2022
and letters of the Examination Controller and Special Task Force,
the basis for doubting correctness of the marks entered in the mark
sheet of the petitioner and the tabulation register of St. Andrew’s
College and the tabulation register of Gorakhpur University is the
award sheet (counter foil).
27. At no point of time, any inquiry has been conducted with
respect to the authenticity of the tabulation sheet on the basis of
which marks of the petitioner has already been verified. The
authorities have casted doubt on the tabulation register of the
University itself on the basis of award sheet (counter foil) which is
arbitrary and without justification.
28. The aforesaid objection has been raised after a lapse of 25
years after graduation of the petitioner and it is beyond
imagination to believe as to why even after lapse of 25 years the

12
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
award sheet has still not been destroyed. The impugned order is
thus based on non existing grounds, therefore, is illegal, arbitrary
and bad in the eyes of law.
29. The Bachelor of Arts Degree of the petitioner has been
obtained in the year 2000 while the objection has been raised with
respect to the aforesaid mark sheet between 2022 to 2025 years
after a period of more than decades, there does not exist any
justification for such belated action.
30. The only allegation which could be accepted is entering
slight higher marks than the marks obtained in the IIIrd Year
Bachelor of Arts. Even on the basis of the marks as shown in the
tabulation sheet, the petitioner would continue to remain a pass
and valid holder of graduation degree, therefore, there is no
justification in passing the order impugned. A verification report of
Controller of Examination dated 03.02.2014, the communication
of the Principal St. Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur dated
04.09.2024, 18.10.2024 as well as tabulation chart maintained by
St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur as well as the Gorakhpur
University and the report of examination controller dated
01.04.2024 all go to prove the correctness of the mark sheet of the
petitioner.
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
if the reduced marks of the petitioner are there an issue would arise
as to how reduced marks would effect the selection/appointment of
the petitioner, thus, the recovery on the basis of the aforesaid
impugned order dated 28.07.2025, is also bad and not justified in
the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

13
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
32. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BSA submits
that the petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in
a Primary School pursuant to an appointment letter dated
06.02.2010. It is further contended that, subsequent to such
appointment, certain doubts and suspicions arose with regard to
the genuineness and authenticity of the B.A. mark-sheet
purportedly issued in favour of the petitioner by St. Andrew's
College, Gorakhpur, an institution affiliated with Gorakhpur
University.
33. In view thereof, and in discharge of the statutory obligation
to ensure the integrity of public appointments, the competent
authority deemed it appropriate to initiate proceedings for
verification of the said educational credentials, so as to ascertain
their authenticity and veracity.
34. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, in
order to ascertain the authenticity of the petitioner’s academic
credentials, the Vice-Chancellor of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya
University, Gorakhpur, constituted a three-member inquiry
committee to examine the genuineness of the B.A. examination
mark-sheets pertaining to the academic sessions 1998–2000.
35. It is contended that, in the course of the said inquiry, the
committee issued multiple notices to the petitioner, affording her
adequate opportunity to appear in person and submit a written
explanation. However, despite due service of notices, the petitioner
neither appeared before the committee nor furnished any reply,
thereby choosing not to avail the opportunity so granted.

14
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
36. It is further submitted that, upon completion of the inquiry
proceedings, the committee finalized its report on 30.9.2022 and
duly forwarded the same to the District Basic Education Officer,
Gorakhpur, for appropriate action in accordance with law.
37. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that,
upon receipt of the aforesaid inquiry report, notices were duly
issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, as well
as by the Inspector, STF, calling upon the petitioner to furnish her
explanation and to appear for personal hearing.
38. It is contended that, instead of responding to the said notices,
the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.77of 2025 before this
Hon’ble Court, which came to be disposed of by order dated
17.02.2025. By the said order, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to
grant liberty to the petitioner to submit her reply to the notice
dated 19.10.2024 issued by the District Basic Education Officer,
Gorakhpur, and further directed respondent no.2 to consider and
decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, after duly
adverting to the submissions so made by the petitioner.
39. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, in
compliance with the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by this
Hon’ble Court, the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur
issued a notice dated 01.03.2025 to the petitioner, calling upon her
to submit her reply to the allegations levelled against her.
40. It is contended that, in response thereto, instead of furnishing
a substantive explanation, the petitioner, vide letter dated
17.03.2025, merely sought supply of certain documents and failed
to address the issues raised in the notice. Thereafter, a further

15
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
notice dated 27.05.2025 was issued by respondent no.6, granting
yet another opportunity to the petitioner; however, she again
sought adjournment and prayed for additional time to submit her
reply.
41. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the subsequent notice
dated 14.07.2025 issued by respondent no.6, the petitioner neither
submitted any reply nor availed the opportunity of hearing
extended to her.
42. In these circumstances, and after affording repeated
opportunities which the petitioner failed to avail, the competent
authority, being left with no alternative, proceeded to pass the
order dated 28.07.2025, whereby the appointment of the petitioner
was cancelled in accordance with law.
43. Learned counsel for the respondents, while defending the
impugned order, submits that the same has been passed on the
basis of a detailed and duly conducted inquiry, culminating in a
report dated 30.9.2022 submitted by the committee constituted by
Gorakhpur University.
44. It is contended that the said inquiry report, which forms the
very foundation of the impugned action, has not been assailed or
challenged by the petitioner at any point of time before any
competent forum. Consequently, the findings recorded therein
have attained finality and are binding upon the parties.
45. On the strength of the aforesaid report, it is further submitted
that the petitioner’s mark sheet has been conclusively found to be
not genuine, and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer

16
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Hon’ble
Court.
46. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
inquiry has unequivocally revealed that the tabulation chart of the
college pertaining to the examination in question had been
tampered with. It is contended that there exists clear interpolation
in the marks, whereby the petitioner’s score was unlawfully
enhanced from 227 to 336.
47. It is further submitted that the manner and extent of such
interpolation stand conclusively established from the counterfoil
maintained by the University, which constitutes primary and
unimpeachable evidence for ascertaining the actual marks obtained
by a candidate. The said primary record, therefore, belies the
authenticity of the mark sheet relied upon by the petitioner.
48. In light of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner
had deliberately relied upon a fabricated and manipulated mark
sheet to secure appointment, and consequently, the impugned
order, having been passed on the basis of cogent material and
lawful inquiry, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity
warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court.
49. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is
a well-settled principle of law that any appointment secured on the
basis of fraud or misrepresentation stands vitiated at its very
inception, and such a person is not entitled to any equitable relief,
sympathy, or indulgence from the Court.
50. It is contended that fraud unravels all solemn acts, and once
it is established that the very foundation of appointment is tainted,

17
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
no leniency can be shown in favour of such an incumbent. In
support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance has been placed upon
the judgments rendered in Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. and
others, (Writ-A No. 10029 of 2025), Virendra Kumar Mishra vs.
State of U.P. and Others in Writ A No.11846 of 2025, Shiv Kumar
Vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others in Writ A No.12839 of 2023, Pankaj
Mathur vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others in Writ A No.12336 of 2025,
Deepa Magleena vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in Writ A No.10843
of 2025, Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
in Writ A No.2014 of 2023 wherein it has been categorically held
that a candidate who secures appointment on the strength of forged
or fabricated documents cannot claim any protection in law. The
similar issue has also been settled in case of Garima Singh vs.
State of U.P. and 2 Others in Writ A No.19634 of 2025. On that
issue Division Bench of this Court has also made observation in
case of Poonam Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (1) ADJ
225 and Vinay Kumar Shahi vs. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya
Gorakhpur University and Others in Special Appeal No.26 of 2007
that the tabulation chart is a sacred documents and no person can
be permitted to make any interpolation in it.
51. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner, having
obtained appointment on the basis of a manipulated mark sheet, is
not entitled to any relief, and the impugned order calls for no
interference by this Hon’ble Court.
52. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in cases
where an appointment has been secured by practising fraud, the
requirement of affording further opportunity of hearing or
entertaining delayed replies does not arise under the applicable

18
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
Rules of 1999. It is contended that once fraud is prima facie
established, the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked to
perpetuate an illegality or to confer any advantage upon the
wrongdoer.
53. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having failed to
avail repeated opportunities already extended and having been
found to have procured appointment on the basis of fraudulent
documents, cannot now insist upon any additional opportunity as a
matter of right.
54. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the present writ
petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, liable to be
dismissed.
55. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University
submits that, upon scrutiny of the petitioner’s academic records,
material discrepancies and variations in the marks obtained by the
petitioner were detected.
56. It is contended that, in order to afford due opportunity,
several communications were issued by the University calling
upon the petitioner to appear in person and furnish an appropriate
explanation with respect to the said discrepancies. In response
thereto, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 25.06.2021,
however, the explanation so tendered was found to be wholly
unsatisfactory and failed to dispel the serious doubts regarding the
authenticity of the marks in question.
57. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University
submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed upon due
perusal of the original records of the University as well as the

19
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
inquiry report. It is contended that, upon scrutiny, it has been
conclusively established that the marks recorded in respect of the
petitioner for B.A. Part-I (1998, Roll No. 128685), B.A. Part-II
(1999, Roll No. 109673), and B.A. Part-III (2000, Roll No.
114125) were found to have been tampered with in the tabulation
register maintained at the examination centre, namely St. Andrew’s
College, Gorakhpur, as well as in certain corresponding University
records.
58. It is further submitted that, from a perusal of the original
award sheets obtained from the confidential section of the
University, particularly with regard to B.A. Part-III (2000), it
emerges that the petitioner had actually secured 41 marks in the
first paper of Psychology, 06 marks in the second paper, 47 marks
in the third paper, and 26 marks in the practical examination.
Similarly, in Political Science, the petitioner had secured 42 marks
in the first paper, 30 marks in the second paper, and 35 marks in
the third paper.
59. However, it is contended that the mark sheet submitted by
the petitioner before the office of the District Basic Education
Officer reflects wholly different and inflated marks, namely 62,
51, 57, and 24 in Psychology, and 62, 72, and 62 in Political
Science, respectively, thereby demonstrating a stark and
unexplained variation from the original records maintained by the
University. Such discrepancies, it is submitted, unmistakably
establish that the mark sheet relied upon by the petitioner is forged
and fabricated, and further indicate tampering with the tabulation
register in collusion with certain unknown persons.

20
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
60. It is thus submitted that the B.A. mark sheet produced by the
petitioner is not genuine, and the inquiry report to that effect was
duly placed before the competent authority, on the basis whereof
the impugned order has been passed.
61. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the directions issued
by this Hon’ble Court, a communication dated 19.10.2025 was
addressed to the Controller of Examinations of the University for
initiating appropriate action against the erring officials. In
compliance thereof, the Vice-Chancellor directed the Controller of
Examinations to issue show cause notices to the staff and
employees of the Examination Department who had discharged
duties during the period 1998 to 2019, with a view to identify the
persons responsible for the fraud.
62. It is also contended that, consequent thereto, a First
Information Report came to be lodged on 21.10.2025 at Police
Station Cantt, District Gorakhpur, being Case Crime No. 0584 of
2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code. Further, the Controller of Examinations also
addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary, Department
of Higher Education, requesting constitution of a Special Task
Force to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the fraud
perpetrated, of which the petitioner is a direct beneficiary.
63. All the aforesaid facts, it is submitted, have been duly
brought on record by means of a personal affidavit filed by the
Registrar of the University, in compliance with the directions
issued by this Hon’ble Court.

21
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
64. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Inquiry
Committee, upon a meticulous examination of the academic
records of the petitioner as maintained by the University,
particularly the counterfoil which constitutes primary and
unimpeachable evidence, has rendered a detailed report. The
findings recorded therein conclusively establish, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that the petitioner had consciously, deliberately,
and with mala fide intent, indulged in tampering with her
educational documents so as to derive undue benefit for securing
appointment in the Basic Education Department.
65. It is thus contended that the B.A. mark sheet relied upon by
the petitioner cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as
genuine or authentic. It is further submitted that the said inquiry
report, forming the very substratum of the impugned action, has
neither been assailed nor challenged by the petitioner at any stage
and, as such, has attained finality.
66. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief as prayed for, and the present writ
petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
67. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
68. The instant writ petition has been preferred laying challenge
to the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Gorakhpur, whereby the petitioner’s appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher has been annulled with retrospective
effect, accompanied by consequential directions for recovery of

22
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
emoluments disbursed and initiation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner.
69. The factual conspectus, shorn of superfluous details, is that
the petitioner asserts to have attained educational qualifications up
to the level of Bachelor of Arts, followed by B.Ed., and thereafter
completing the Special BTC Training Course, in the year 2008. On
the strength of the aforesaid credentials, she came to be appointed
as an Assistant Teacher in the year 2010.
70. It is not in dispute that subsequent to her appointment,
certain complaints came to be lodged casting doubt upon the
authenticity of her Bachelor of Arts marksheet, particularly with
regard to the alleged inflation of marks obtained in the third year
examination.
71. The matter was subjected to multifarious levels of scrutiny,
encompassing verification by the University authorities,
consideration of the inquiry committee report dated 30.09.2022,
examination of the reports submitted by the Controller of
Examinations, as well as inputs received from the Special Task
Force.
72. On the basis of the aforesaid materials, repeated notices were
issued to the petitioner, affording her adequate opportunity to
submit her explanation with respect to the allegations pertaining to
the authenticity of the Bachelor of Arts marksheet.
73. The principal submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, are manifold.
74. Firstly, it is contended that no regular departmental inquiry,
as contemplated under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline

23
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
and Appeal) Rules, 1999, was conducted prior to the passing of the
impugned order, thereby vitiating the action on account of
procedural infirmity.
75. Secondly, it is urged that the petitioner’s Bachelor of Arts
degree has not been formally annulled or cancelled by the
competent University authority, and in the absence thereof, the
respondent-authorities lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the
petitioner’s appointment founded upon such qualification.
76. Thirdly, it is submitted that the entries contained in the
tabulation register lend support to the marks claimed by the
petitioner, and, therefore, any reliance placed upon the counterfoil
to discredit the same is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
77. Fourthly, it is contended that the impugned action is vitiated
on account of gross and unexplained delay, inasmuch as the degree
in question pertains to the year 2000, and the proceedings have
been initiated after an inordinate lapse of time.
78. Lastly, it is argued that even assuming, without admitting,
that there exists some discrepancy in the marks obtained, the
petitioner would nonetheless retain the status of a graduate, and
thus, the very foundation of the appointment cannot be said to be
vitiated.
79. It has further been urged that the petitioner has rendered long
years of unblemished service, which ought to be accorded due
weight in equity while adjudicating the present controversy.
80. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced at the
Bar, the following issues arise for determination before this
Court:-

24
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
(i) whether the impugned action stands vitiated for want of a
regular disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the applicable service
rules;
(ii) whether the absence of a formal cancellation of the
petitioner’s degree by the competent University authority renders the
impugned order unsustainable in law;
(iii) whether the findings recorded with regard to the alleged
forged and manipulated marksheet suffer from perversity or legal
infirmity;
(iv) whether the element of delay, coupled with the petitioner’s
long continuance in service, gives rise to any vested or equitable right
in her favour; and
(v) whether the directions pertaining to recovery of salary and
initiation of consequential proceedings are legally tenable.
81. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that a
full-fledged departmental inquiry under the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was a sine qua non
for the impugned action is fundamentally misconceived and
legally untenable.
82. The present case does not pertain to an instance of
misconduct committed during the course of service; rather, it
strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s entry into service, which
is alleged to have been secured on the basis of a tainted and
fraudulent document. It is trite law that where the initial
appointment itself is void ab initio, the employer is not obliged to
undertake a detailed disciplinary inquiry akin to punitive
proceedings contemplated under the service rules.

25
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
83. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently enunciated the
principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and any appointment
obtained by misrepresentation or by furnishing forged or
fabricated documents is liable to be annulled without recourse to
elaborate inquiry proceedings.
84. In the present case, the record reflects that the petitioner was
issued repeated notices, furnished with the relevant materials, and
afforded adequate opportunity to submit her explanation in respect
of the allegations levelled against her. Despite the same, the
petitioner has chosen to place reliance upon the tabulation chart to
substantiate the correctness of her marksheet, which, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is wholly misconceived.
85. In such circumstances, once it is established that the
appointment was procured by playing fraud, the requirement of
conducting a detailed departmental inquiry or affording any further
opportunity pales into insignificance, the legal position in this
regard being well settled.
86. The next limb of argument, namely, that in the absence of a
formal cancellation of the degree by the University the employer is
rendered powerless to act, does not commend acceptance and is
liable to be rejected.
87. An employer is not only entitled, but is under a legal
obligation, to satisfy itself as to whether a candidate fulfilled the
prescribed eligibility conditions at the time of entry into service.
Where the material on record demonstrably indicates that the
marksheet relied upon by the candidate is manipulated,
inconsistent, or otherwise unreliable, the employer cannot be
compelled to await a formal annulment of the degree by the

26
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
University authorities. The satisfaction of the employer, arrived at
on the basis of a duly conducted inquiry and founded upon cogent
material, with regard to fraud or misrepresentation, is sufficient to
invalidate the appointment. In the present case, as already
delineated hereinabove, the impugned order has been passed upon
due consideration of the inquiry reports and other relevant
materials on record.
88. Consequently, the submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner in this regard is devoid of merit and does not warrant
acceptance.
89. As regards the evidentiary worth of the inquiry reports, the
record unequivocally discloses that the issue was examined at
multiple levels by competent authorities, including the inquiry
committee constituted by the University, the report of the
Controller of Examinations, as well as inputs received from the
Special Task Force. The consistent and unbroken thread emerging
from these materials is that the marks reflected in the petitioner’s
marksheet do not reconcile with the original academic record,
particularly the counterfoil/award sheet, which constitutes the
primary evidence.
90. The contention that the tabulation register alone ought to
prevail is a manifest oversimplification of the evidentiary
framework. It is a settled proposition of law that where
discrepancies arise between primary and secondary records,
primacy must be accorded to the original record, which in the
present case is the counterfoil/award sheet, from which the
tabulation register is prepared. In the present case, the marks
recorded in the B.A. third-year marksheet are at variance with the

27
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
counterfoil, and even the tabulation register bears signs of
overwriting, thereby rendering it unreliable. A document derived
from primary evidence, when itself stands vitiated by interpolation
or alteration, cannot be accorded sanctity so as to override the
primary record.
91. In such circumstances, it was well within the domain of the
competent authority to examine all relevant records and arrive at a
reasoned conclusion. This Court, in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate forum to reappreciate or
reassess findings of fact, unless such findings are demonstrated to
be perverse, arbitrary, or wholly unsupported by the record.
92. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any
such perversity or patent illegality in the findings so recorded and
the inquiry report dated 30.09.2022 has not been challenged by the
petitioner. Consequently, the challenge on this count is devoid of
substance.
93. The plea advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned action is vitiated on account of delay is equally devoid
of merit and does not merit acceptance.
94. It is a settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates all
proceedings and that there can be no limitation for the discovery
and correction of a fraud. The moment such fraud comes to light,
the competent authority is well within its jurisdiction to take
appropriate corrective measures, irrespective of the lapse of time.
95. The mere length of service rendered by the petitioner cannot
sanctify an appointment which was void ab initio. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has time and again held that principles of equity

28
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or to confer
legitimacy upon an act tainted by fraud.
96. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim any vested or
indefeasible right on the basis of long continuance in service,
when the very foundation of such continuance stands vitiated.
97. Another submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, to
the effect that even upon reduction of marks the petitioner would
still satisfy the eligibility criteria, is equally misconceived and
liable to be rejected.
98. The controversy at hand does not rest merely upon the
question of eligibility; rather, it goes to the very integrity and
sanctity of the selection process. The submission of a document
reflecting inflated or manipulated marks strikes at the root of
fairness, transparency, and probity in public employment.
99. Even a marginal or seemingly insignificant manipulation
cannot be countenanced, for any degree of falsification amounts to
fraud. Once fraud is established, the entire selection stands
vitiated, irrespective of whether the candidate may otherwise have
fulfilled the minimum eligibility requirements.
100. Once an appointment is held to be void ab initio, the
consequential directions for recovery of salary and initiation of
criminal proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or
authority of law. Such consequences are the natural corollaries of
an appointment founded upon fraud or misrepresentation.
101. No doubt, in exceptional circumstances, the Court, in
exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may interfere with such
consequential directions; however, no such mitigating or

29
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
extraordinary circumstance has been demonstrated in the present
case so as to warrant any indulgence.
102. In view thereof, the consequential directions contained in the
impugned order also do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The
issue in this regard stands authoritatively settled, inter alia, in the
case of Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others, passed in Writ
A No.10029 of 2025, 2025:AHC:186564, wherein it has been held
that once the very foundation of appointment is vitiated, all
consequential actions flowing therefrom are legally sustainable.
103. Yet another submission has been advanced on behalf of the
petitioner to the effect that the tabulation register constitutes the
most authentic record and, therefore, any discrepancy vis-à-vis the
counterfoil/award sheet ought to be disregarded.
104. Though the said contention may appear attractive at first
blush, it does not withstand deeper judicial scrutiny and is liable to
be rejected.
105. It is imperative to appreciate the hierarchical evidentiary
value of academic records in the context of the present
controversy. The counterfoil of the award sheet constitutes the
original and primary record, prepared contemporaneously by the
examiner at the time of evaluation, reflecting the marks actually
awarded to the candidate. The tabulation register, on the other
hand, is merely a compiled or derivative record, subsequently
prepared on the basis of entries transcribed from such primary
evidence, namely, the award sheet/counterfoil.
106. Thus, by its very nature, the counterfoil assumes the
character of primary evidence, whereas the tabulation register

30
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
partakes the character of secondary or derivative evidence. The
settled legal position is that where primary evidence is available, it
must be accorded primacy, and any reliance upon secondary
evidence must necessarily yield thereto, particularly in a situation
where discrepancies between the two come to light.
107. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Bihar v.
Radha Krishna Singh and others, (1983) 3 SCC 118, has
emphasized the evidentiary superiority of primary records over
derivative material, holding that entries made in original records
contemporaneously carry greater probative value than
subsequently prepared compilations. Similarly, in LIC of India and
another v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, it has been
reiterated that secondary evidence cannot prevail over primary
evidence when the latter is available and trustworthy.
108. In the present case, therefore, once the counterfoil/award
sheet being the foundational and contemporaneous record
discloses a variance with the marks reflected in the tabulation
register and the marksheet relied upon by the petitioner, the latter
cannot be accorded precedence so as to override the former. The
contention to the contrary is, thus, legally untenable.
109. It is a well-settled principle of law that primary evidence
constitutes the best evidence, and recourse to secondary evidence
is permissible only in the absence of the former or under
exceptional and duly explained circumstances.
110. Applying the aforesaid doctrine to the facts of the present
case, once the original award sheet/counterfoil is available on
record, it assumes evidentiary primacy and is required to be
accorded greater probative value than any compiled register,

31
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
tabulation chart, or derivative record, which is admittedly prepared
on the basis of such primary evidence itself.
111. This position assumes greater significance in the present
case, where the tabulation chart, apart from being a secondary
record, is also tainted by overwriting and interpolation, thereby
further eroding its credibility. In such circumstances, no reliance
can be placed upon a derivative record so as to override or displace
the sanctity of the primary record.
112. Accordingly, the counterfoil/award sheet, being the best
evidence available, must prevail.
113. In the present case, the entire controversy centres around the
discrepancy between the marks recorded in the petitioner’s
marksheet and those reflected in the counterfoil/award sheet. The
petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the tabulation register,
contending that it corroborates the marks claimed by her.
However, such reliance is wholly misplaced and legally untenable
for the reasons noted hereinafter.
114. The tabulation register is admittedly a derivative record,
prepared on the basis of entries transcribed from the
counterfoil/award sheet. If the primary source itself reflects marks
at variance with those recorded in the marksheet, any subsequent
entry inconsistent therewith is rendered inherently suspect and
devoid of probative value.
115. Acceptance of the tabulation register in preference to the
counterfoil would amount to elevating a derivative record above
its very source, which is impermissible in law and contrary to
settled principles of evidence. It is, therefore, axiomatic that the

32
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
authenticity of the marks must be tested at the level of the original
and contemporaneous record, namely, the award sheet/counterfoil.
116. Once a discrepancy stands established between the entries
recorded in the counterfoil, being the primary and
contemporaneous record, and those reflected in the mark sheet
produced by the petitioner, the only logical and legally sustainable
inference that emerges is that the mark sheet does not constitute a
faithful or accurate reflection of the marks actually awarded.
117. Such a divergence, in the absence of a plausible and
satisfactory explanation, inevitably gives rise to a presumption that
the document relied upon by the petitioner is either not genuine or
has been subjected to interpolation or manipulation. The
evidentiary value of the counterfoil, being the foundational record,
cannot be diluted by a subsequent document which is
demonstrably inconsistent with it.
118. In the case at hand, the petitioner has conspicuously failed to
furnish any cogent, credible, or convincing explanation so as to
reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the primary record
and the mark sheet in question. The absence of any such
explanation fortifies the conclusion that the mark sheet relied upon
by the petitioner lacks authenticity and cannot be accorded any
evidentiary credence.
119. Placing reliance upon the proceedings of the Examination
Committee dated 21.08.2024, it is evident that the inquiry report
dated 30.9.2022 was merely placed before the Committee for its
consideration. The minutes unequivocally record that no decision
was taken by the Examination Committee on the said report.

33
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
120. In such circumstances, the impugned order, having been
passed solely on the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report without
there being any deliberation, approval, or decision by the
competent Examination Committee cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law. The absence of a formal decision by the competent body
renders the reliance upon the said report wholly untenable and
legally unsustainable.
121. Accordingly, where the statutory or competent authority has
consciously refrained from arriving at any conclusion on the
inquiry report, any action founded exclusively thereupon stands
vitiated, being arbitrary and devoid of due application of mind.
122. This Court is of the considered opinion that a detailed
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, through its Registrar as well as
the Controller of Examinations, placing on record the entire
material to demonstrate that the impugned action has been taken
by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
123. The records so produced clearly evince that a conscious and
reasoned decision has been arrived at by the competent authority
after due consideration of the inquiries conducted for the purpose
of verifying the genuineness of the petitioner’s mark sheet. The
decision-making process, thus, cannot be said to suffer from any
procedural irregularity or legal infirmity.
124. In view thereof, the submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that no decision was taken by the Examination
Committee on the earlier report is wholly misconceived and
devoid of merit. Such an argument does not withstand judicial

34
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
scrutiny and, in fact, has no legs to stand in the face of the material
placed on record.
125. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansaram v. S.P.
Pathak and others, 1984 (1) SCC 125 wherein it has been observed
that the exercise of statutory powers must be undertaken within a
reasonable time, and that inordinate and unexplained delay may
render such action legally unsustainable.
126. However, the aforesaid judgment is clearly distinguishable
and has no application to the facts of the present case. It is a settled
proposition of law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and that no
limitation operates against fraud. The discovery of fraud at any
stage confers jurisdiction upon the competent authority to take
appropriate corrective measures.
127. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that equity
cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality, nor can a person be
permitted to derive benefit from a fraudulent act. Once fraud is
detected, the authorities are not only empowered but duty-bound to
initiate inquiry and take consequential action, irrespective of the
lapse of time.
128. In such circumstances, the principle of “reasonable time” as
enunciated in Mansaram (supra) pales into insignificance,
inasmuch as the present case pertains to allegations of fraud,
where the overriding consideration is to uphold the sanctity of
public records and prevent abuse of process.

35
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
129. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the
aforesaid judgment is misplaced and does not advance his case in
any manner.
130. The judgment in Radhe Shyam Yadav & Another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2024) 11 SCC 770, as relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, enunciates authoritative
principles governing fraudulent appointments, suppression of
material facts, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom in
matters of public employment.
131. The ratio of the said decision may be succinctly encapsulated
thus: an appointment secured by practicing fraud or on the basis of
forged or fabricated documents is void ab initio. Such foundational
illegality is incurable and cannot be sanctified by the mere efflux
of time. Equitable considerations, including long years of service
or alleged hardship, are wholly inapplicable and cannot be invoked
to shield or legitimize an inherently void appointment.
132. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the employer
retains the inherent authority to annul such an appointment at any
stage upon detection of fraud, and the doctrines of delay and
laches do not operate as a bar in such cases.
133. The said judgment thus reinforces the settled legal position
that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and any benefit obtained by
deceit is liable to be withdrawn irrespective of the passage of time
or length of service rendered by the beneficiary.
134. Placing reliance upon the judgment in Riyazul Hasan v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2025:AHC:223273, learned counsel for
the petitioner has contended that no regular departmental inquiry

36
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
has been conducted, despite the petitioner being a duly appointed
permanent teacher. It is thus urged that the impugned order stands
vitiated for non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under
the relevant statutory framework, including the Rules of 1999 and
the U.P. Basic Education Staff Service Rules, 1973, and is
consequently arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural
justice.
135. The submission, however, is misconceived and untenable in
the facts of the present case.
136. It is by now a well-settled principle of law that fraud vitiates
all solemn acts, and any appointment obtained on the basis of
forged or fabricated documents is void ab initio. In such cases, the
very foundation of the appointment being non est, the requirement
of holding a full-fledged departmental inquiry pales into
insignificance.
137. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P. State Financial
Corporation v. M/S GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, (1994) 2
SCC 647 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1
SCC 1 has categorically held that a person who has obtained any
benefit by practicing fraud is not entitled to any equitable relief,
and such an act renders the transaction a nullity in the eyes of law.
138. Further, in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of
Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that where an appointment is secured on the basis of a false
caste certificate, the same is void from inception, and no
opportunity of hearing or detailed inquiry is required prior to
cancellation, as the incumbent had no legal right to the post.

37
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
139. Similarly, in the case of Bank of India and another v.
Avinash D. Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690, it was held
that an employee who obtains appointment by producing false
documents cannot claim protection of natural justice to perpetuate
such illegality.
140. The principle has been reiterated in Chairman and Managing
Director, FCI and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others,
(2017) 8 SCC 670 wherein it has been held that once fraud is
established, the question of affording further opportunity becomes
irrelevant, as the appointment itself is void.
141. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of
the considered opinion that no detailed departmental inquiry or
prior opportunity of hearing is mandatorily required in cases where
the appointment is founded upon forged or non-genuine
documents, and the fraud stands substantiated on the basis of
objective material on record.
142. The writ Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, would not ordinarily interfere
with such action unless it is demonstrated that the decision is
perverse, wholly arbitrary, or based on no evidence whatsoever. In
the present case, no such infirmity has been established.
143. Accordingly, the contention raised by the petitioner,
premised upon alleged violation of procedural safeguards, is
devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.
144. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from
any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity so as to warrant

38
WRIA No. - 11875 of 2025
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
145. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.


(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
April, 3, 2026
Rahul Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad