Appointment Secured via Interpolated Marksheets is Void Ab Initio and Vitiates Right to Disciplinary Inquiry

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in February 2010 based on her educational qualifications, including a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree from St. Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur.

Following complaints regarding the authenticity of her B.A. marksheet, an inquiry committee constituted by Gorakhpur University found that her marks had been inflated/tampered with in the tabulation register.

Specifically, marks entered in her marksheet were significantly higher than those recorded in the University’s original "award sheets/counterfoils".

Consequently, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Gorakhpur, passed an order on 28.07.2025 cancelling her appointment retrospectively, ordering recovery of salary, and initiating criminal proceedings.

The petitioner challenged this order, citing procedural lapses and the fact that her degree had not been formally revoked by the University.

The court applied the fundamental principle that "fraud vitiates all solemn acts," rendering any benefit obtained through misrepresentation void ab initio.

It relied on R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, which held that appointments secured via false certificates do not require detailed inquiries as no legal right to the post ever existed.

Regarding evidence, it applied the doctrine of "best evidence," holding that primary records (counterfoils/award sheets) carry higher probative value than derivative secondary records (tabulation registers) per State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh.

It further relied on Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., established that delay or laches do not bar the state from correcting fraudulent appointments.

The Court rejected the petitioner's procedural challenge, reasoning that since the fraud went to the root of the appointment (void ab initio), a full-fledged inquiry under the 1999 Rules was unnecessary, provided natural justice (notice) was served.

The Court analyzed the evidentiary conflict and determined that the "award sheet" is the contemporaneous primary record prepared by examiners, while the tabulation register is merely derivative; thus, where the source document shows lower marks, the inflated register is deemed tampered.

The Court found that even if the petitioner remained a "graduate" with the lower marks, the act of submitting a manipulated document destroyed the integrity of the selection process.

The Court held that the employer has an independent duty to verify eligibility and need not wait for a formal University decree revocation if fraud is objectively established.

It held that an appointment secured by fraud is a nullity and confers no vested rights regardless of the length of service.

The Court affirmed the directions for recovery of salary and the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR), stating these are natural corollaries of a void appointment.

The writ petition was dismissed.