Headline: Fraud in securing foundational educational qualifications renders appointment void ab initio and nullifies long-service equity.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1989

While uploading documents to the Manav Sampada Portal in 2024 after 35 years of service, she realized her 1984 High School Passing Certificate was missing

She applied to the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad ("Board") for a duplicate, claiming she passed in 1984 (Roll No. 1233725)

The Board's inquiry revealed her original result was recorded as "withheld" (CP category) due to missing foundational papers

To rectify this, the petitioner allegedly submitted a forged Class VIII Transfer Certificate from an institution in Etah and a handwritten High School marksheet

Further investigation by a court-appointed Inquiry Officer established that her Class XI Transfer Certificate used to gain entry into Class XII was also fabricated

Consequently, the Board rejected her application and the District Basic Education Officer withheld her salary

The Court applied the fundamental legal maxim Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (Fraud and justice never dwell together), establishing that fraud vitiates all solemn acts

It relied on Chapter XII, Regulation 10.1 of the U.P. Board of Secondary Education Rules, 1983-88, which mandates passing Class VIII or IX as a prerequisite for the High School Examination

The Court followed Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2012), ruling that fraudulently obtained employment confers no equity or estoppel regardless of the length of service

It further applied the principle from Manjul Kumar v. State of U.P. (2021) that appointments based on forged documents are void ab initio

And noted that the requirement of natural justice is diluted where facts establish blatant fraud, as held in Garima Singh v. State of U.P.

The Court found that the petitioner’s entire academic and professional career was built on a "tainted" foundation. Though her name appeared in the 1984 Gazette, her result was explicitly "withheld," meaning she never legally passed the High School examination

The Board's verification confirmed that the "handwritten marksheet" she relied upon was never authorized or issued by the school principal

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that 35 years of unblemished service created a right to remain in service; it reasoned that since the foundational eligibility (Class VIII and XI certificates) was found to be forged during the inquiry, the original appointment was a nullity

The Court determined that the petitioner’s acts constituted "deliberate misrepresentation" rather than a procedural irregularity

Therefore, the administrative delay in verification did not cure the underlying fraud

The Court held that an appointment obtained through fraud is void ab initio and length of service provides no immunity from dismissal or withholding of salary

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Board’s refusal to issue the certificate and the Basic Education Officer’s orders withholding the petitioner's salary

No relief was granted regarding the arrears or continuity of service