Appointment Obtained Through Forged Educational Certificates Is Void Ab Initio And Vitiated By Fraud

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on March 31, 1995, at Primary Pathshala, Balua, claiming to have passed the Intermediate examination in 1983.

In 2010, following a verification process, the Principal of P.N. Intermediate College, Ghazipur, reported that the Roll Number (335639) cited by the appellant was never allotted to any candidate.

The District Basic Education Officer cancelled the appointment with retrospective effect on May 10, 2010, despite a show-cause notice and the submission of a rebuttal certificate by the appellant.

The learned Single Judge ordered further verification from the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, which confirmed the mark-sheet was forged; consequently, the writ was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000, and directions were issued to lodge an FIR and recover salary.

The appellant filed this special appeal citing violation of natural justice and jurisdictional overreach.

The court applied the fundamental legal principle that "fraud vitiates every solemn act".

An appointment secured via forgery is voidable at the instance of the employer and confers no enforceable rights or equity on the appointee, regardless of the length of service.

The court distinguished between misconduct during service (requiring a full inquiry) and a "tainted entry" at the threshold of employment, where verification from the competent examining authority is sufficient for termination.

The court reasoned that since the very foundation of the appellant’s appointment was a forged document, the appointment was void ab initio.

It rejected the natural justice argument, noting that the appellant was served two show-cause notices and was even given a second opportunity by the Single Judge to verify a supplementary mark-sheet, which also proved fictitious.

The court emphasized that the "principles of natural justice are intended to ensure fairness and cannot be invoked to protect a claim founded on a forged document".

Regarding the FIR and recovery directions, the court held these were justified consequential actions to deter the abuse of the public employment system.

The court found that the appellant’s persistence in filing false documents during litigation justified the imposition of exemplary costs.

The court affirmed the directions for lodging an FIR and recovery of salary, stating that length of service cannot "sanitize" an entry obtained by fraud.

The court dismissed the special appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order.