Appointment secured through forged educational documents is void and excludes protection under Article 311.

The appellants were appointed as Excise Constables in 2010. Following an inquiry by the Excise Department, their services were terminated in 2013 on findings that they had secured employment using forged and fictitious educational certificates (specifically ‘Adhikari Pariksha’ from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan)

The appellants initially challenged the termination via writ petitions, which were disposed of with directions to the authority to reconsider their representations

Upon reconsideration, the Deputy Commissioner Excise rejected the representations, noting that inquiry revealed no academic activities or examinations were conducted by the institution during the relevant period (2008 onwards) and that the seals/letterheads used were unauthorized

The appellants challenged these rejection orders, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions

1. Whether the termination of services based on forged documents without a full-fledged departmental inquiry violates Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the appointment is valid if the ‘Adhikari Pariksha’ certificate was obtained in a year (2008) prior to the University being declared invalid by the Court.

The Court applied the principle that fraud vitiates every solemn act, relying on Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi

It followed the precedent in R. Vishwantha Pillai v. State of Kerala, which established that an appointment procured via fraud is non-est in the eyes of law and does not attract the protections of Article 311 of the Constitution

The Court further relied on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, which hold that production of fake documents in a selection process justifies termination without a domestic inquiry as it creates no equity or estoppel against the employer

The Court rejected the appellants' contention that a formal departmental inquiry was mandatory, reasoning that since the very threshold of entry into service was crossed through fraud and forgery, no constitutional rights under Article 311 emerged

The Court examined the inquiry findings, which showed that the "Receiver" of the Society (a retired High Court Judge) had confirmed no examinations were held during the period in question due to management disputes

The Court held that once the documents themselves were proved to be fake through an extensive inquiry where the appellants were given a chance to explain, other legal questions regarding the "equivalence" of the degree or the date of the University's invalidation became irrelevant

The Court affirmed the Single Judge’s orders, concluding that the termination of the Excise Constables was lawful because the certificates relied upon for appointment were forged and fictitious. All connected Special Appeals were dismissed