Mere discrepancy in date of birth, absent fraud or undue advantage, cannot sustain cancellation of appointment.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in District Mau on 08.08.2014 following a selection process initiated in 2013

His appointment was predicated on educational qualifications including a Purva Madhyama certificate (2001) from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, which recorded his date of birth (DOB) as 07.07.1987

Following a complaint by a third party in 2018, an inquiry revealed that a 1998 High School certificate and earlier school records (Class VIII) indicated the petitioner’s DOB as 02.07.1984

On 27.06.2019, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Mau, dismissed the petitioner from service and directed the lodging of an FIR, alleging deliberate suppression of material facts regarding his DOB

The petitioner challenged the dismissal, contending that the 1998 certificate was never produced or relied upon for the appointment and that all foundational qualifications used for the job were genuine

1. Whether a mere discrepancy in the date of birth across different educational records, in the absence of forgery or demonstrable advantage, constitutes fraud or willful misrepresentation warranting dismissal

2. Whether the non-disclosure of an earlier educational record amounts to misconduct if the candidate remains eligible for the post under both sets of records

The court applied the principle that fraud must be pleaded with specificity and established by cogent evidence, rather than presumed

It relied on the doctrine of proportionality, holding that the cancellation of an appointment is an extreme measure that must be guided by the presence of a deliberate intent to deceive and resulting prejudice to the employer

The court followed the precedents in Sheoraj Singh v. State of U.P. and Kamla Kant Yadav v. State of U.P., which established that variance in DOB does not vitiate appointment if the relied-upon certificates are genuine and no undue advantage (such as age relaxation) was gained

It further integrated the Division Bench ruling in Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 987 of 2024), which held that misrepresentation must have a direct bearing on the selection process to justify nullifying an appointment

The court reasoned that a "mere discrepancy" cannot be elevated to the status of fraud without evidence of mens rea or a "deliberate design" to secure an unwarranted advantage

It noted that the respondents did not dispute the genuineness of the petitioner’s foundational qualifications (Purva Madhyama, Shastri, BTC), which remained valid and uncancelled

Critically, the court observed that even if the petitioner had used the earlier DOB (1984), he would have still satisfied the eligibility criteria for the post; thus, the "foundational requirement of gain or advantage"—an indispensable element of fraud—was absent

The court distinguished the respondent's reliance on Kavita Kuril v. State of U.P., noting that while High School certificates are generally primary proof of age, a variance in records does not automatically imply fraud if the document actually used was bona fide

The court concluded that the dismissal was based on "suspicion rather than substantiated proof," as the respondents failed to record a categorical finding that the petitioner intentionally misled the authorities for a tangible benefit

It held that the non-disclosure of the 1998 certificate did not rise to the level of culpable suppression because it did not result in any prejudice to the employer or distortion of the selection process

The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith

However, the court applied the principle of "no work, no pay," denying the petitioner back wages for the period he was out of service

The court further provided that if any foundational documents are subsequently found to be fabricated, the respondents may initiate fresh proceedings according to law