An appointment cannot be cancelled for certificate discrepancies after university verification confirms the requisite qualification.

The petitioner’s appointment as a Rojgar Sahayak, made in 2012, was cancelled by order dated 8 May 2024 after discrepancies arose in the verification of his computer-operation qualification.

The petitioner maintained that the 50 selection marks were awarded for a computer-operation certificate obtained in 2003–04, not for his engineering degree.

Bhoj University’s verification records stated that his computer-literacy and school-studies qualification had been passed in 2003–04 and that the certificate information matched the University’s tabulation record.

After the petition was filed, respondent No. 6 constituted a committee, which examined the records and supported the verification.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment was sustainable when the University’s records and subsequent committee report verified his computer-operation qualification as genuine and obtained before the cut-off date.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits, and, if so, whether those benefits included back wages.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the legality of the cancellation order.

It applied the principle that an administrative decision founded on an incorrect or unsupported factual premise cannot stand when the relevant records establish the contrary.

The Court cited no specific statute beyond Article 226 and no judicial precedent.

In granting consequential benefits, it applied the principle of “No Work No Pay” to exclude back wages.

The Court found that the University’s verification identified the petitioner’s computer-operation qualification as having been passed in 2003–04 and confirmed that the relevant information matched its tabulation record.

It also accepted that the 50 marks were attributable to that certificate, not the petitioner’s engineering mark-sheet, and concluded that the respondents’ contrary position was inconsistent with the record.

The subsequent committee’s review further supported the genuineness of the qualification and the petitioner’s possession of it before the cut-off date.

On that basis, the Court held the cancellation unsustainable.

The directions were to be complied with within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.