Cancellation of appointment set aside where subsequent university genuineness certificates remained unrebutted by the State.

The petitioner, a UR-category candidate, appeared in the Selection Test for Graduate Teachers, 2019 (“STGT, 2019”) conducted by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Tripura (“TRBT”). She relied on B.A. (English) and B.Ed. degrees obtained through distance education from Madurai Kamaraj University. Following her selection, the Director of Secondary Education issued an offer of appointment dated 04.11.2019 for the post of Graduate Teacher on a fixed monthly pay of ₹20,475, subject to prescribed conditions; the petitioner accepted the offer and submitted the required documents

After verification, Madurai Kamaraj University initially communicated on 08.01.2020 that the particulars in the submitted certificates did not match its records. On that basis, the respondents lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC and cancelled the petitioner’s offer of appointment by memorandum dated 15.02.2020

The petitioner was subsequently acquitted by the criminal court, and no appeal was preferred by the State

In the writ proceedings, the petitioner relied on a subsequent communication and genuineness certificates dated 18.02.2020 issued by Madurai Kamaraj University, confirming her B.A. (English) and B.Ed. qualifications. The State did not file any additional affidavit controverting those documents

The petitioner also alleged discriminatory treatment, asserting that similarly placed candidates were permitted to serve under the Government of Tripura

Whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the petitioner’s offer of appointment on the basis of the initial verification communication alleging that her educational certificates did not match the university records?

Whether the subsequent university communications and genuineness certificates, together with the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case, entitled her to quashing of the cancellation memorandum and issuance of a fresh offer of appointment?

The Court considered Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the petitioner had faced criminal proceedings for forgery and use of a forged document

It distinguished the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt from the civil/administrative standard of preponderance of probabilities, observing that acquittal in a criminal prosecution does not, by itself, conclusively establish the genuineness of disputed certificates

However, the Court applied the administrative-law principle that governmental action affecting appointment must have a proper evidentiary basis and cannot stand when the material relied upon is left unrebutted or is contradicted by subsequent verification from the issuing university

The Court found that the cancellation of the appointment offer was initially based on the university’s communication dated 08.01.2020. However, the petitioner subsequently produced the university’s communication and genuineness certificates dated 18.02.2020, which confirmed the authenticity of her B.A. and B.Ed. qualifications

The State neither filed an additional affidavit challenging those documents nor effectively addressed them during oral submissions

Although the petitioner’s acquittal did not independently determine the genuineness of the certificates, the Court noted that the acquittal had attained finality and that the State had not appealed against it

In the absence of any rebuttal to the subsequent university verification, the Court held that there was no sufficient basis for the Director of Secondary Education to cancel the petitioner’s offer of appointment

The memorandum dated 15.02.2020 cancelling the petitioner’s offer of appointment was quashed and set aside

The respondents were directed to issue a fresh offer of appointment to the petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment

Since the petitioner had not performed any duties during the intervening period, the Court denied her claim for back wages