Fraudulent educational credentials used for appointment render service void ab initio, dispensing with mandatory disciplinary inquiry.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2016 based on academic credentials, including an Intermediate (2008) mark sheet bearing Roll No. 0374070

After a prolonged unauthorized absence from July 2020 to December 2022, the petitioner sought to rejoin and produced a different Intermediate mark sheet bearing Roll No. 0324070

Subsequent verification revealed that the original Roll No. (0374070) provided during recruitment was forged and belonged to a different candidate named Poonam

Additionally, discrepancies were found in his B.Tech degree, which contained inconsistent descriptions of the degree title and spelling errors

Consequently, the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), Shamli, issued an order dated 06.10.2025, declaring the appointment void ab initio and terminating his services

The petitioner challenged this order citing violation of natural justice and lack of a formal inquiry under the 1999 Rules

1. Whether the termination of a government servant appointed on the basis of forged documents requires a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999

2. Whether the petitioner's appointment was vitiated by fraud due to the submission of inconsistent and forged educational credentials

The Court applied the fundamental legal maxim that "fraud vitiates all solemn acts," as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kriti Narayan Prasad (2019), which holds that an appointment obtained through fraud is void ab initio and confers no enforceable rights

The Court further relied on Rule 5(3) of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, and the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, noting that while these provide procedural safeguards for validly appointed employees, such protections do not extend to those whose very entry into service is founded on forgery

The Court observed that the petitioner consistently used Roll No. 0374070 in his online application, BTC training, and initial counselling, but suddenly introduced Roll No. 0324070 upon rejoining in 2022

Since the Board confirmed that Roll No. 0374070—the basis of his initial selection—was forged and did not belong to him, the Court reasoned that the entire foundation of his appointment was tainted

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s plea for a mandatory formal inquiry under the 1999 Rules, noting that in cases of foundational fraud or "void ab initio" appointments, a full-scale disciplinary trial is not a prerequisite for cancellation

Furthermore, the court found the petitioner's conduct suspicious regarding his two-year unauthorized absence, suggesting it may have been used to manipulate records

The Court directed a comprehensive, multi-level inquiry to be completed within four months, involving the U.P. Board and Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University to verify high school, intermediate, and B.Tech credentials

Reinstatement was made strictly contingent upon the final outcome of said inquiry