Public Employment Attained By Submitting Forged Educational Certificate Is "Void Ab Initio": Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, while entertaining the writ petition of a retired teacher, has held that public employment secured by providing a forged educational certificate would be null and void to begin with, disentitling such an employee from post-retiral benefits.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,

“….a person who secures an appointment by submitting a forged educational certificate, is not entitled to claim any opportunity of hearing…”

Factual Background

In 1993, petitioner was hired as L.T. Grade Teacher on an ad-hoc basis against a short-term vacancy. Subsequently, on 15.09.2008, the Regional Level Selection Committee recommended the petitioner for regularisation. It was also mentioned in the resolution for regularisation that should any fact regarding the petitioner's appointment be found to have been concealed, his employment would stand cancelled. Thereafter, on 18.09.2020, the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, issued a directive for verifying the educational certificates of the teachers working in government secondary schools and non-government aided schools and submitting a report about the same.

Upon verification, it was found that the self-attested B.Ed. mark-sheet of the petitioner issued by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University bore a name that was not his. Consequently, a resolution was passed for termination of his services under Section 16E (10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Further, payment of his salary was stopped, and it was directed that no work be taken from him.

On 21.09.2020, the Manager of the college sent a letter to the petitioner informing the petitioner of the situation. He told him about an enquiry that had been scheduled in the office of the Additional District Magistrate. Petitioner claimed that on 21.09.2020, he sent a letter to the DIOS stating that he was unwell and that he needed two weeks to submit his reply. He submitted two prescriptions dated 18.09.2020 and 03.10.2020 to corroborate the same. Having not received a proper answer from the petitioner, the DIOS wrote another similar letter on 09.10.2020 along with a copy of the verification report from the university and a copy of the petitioner's mark-sheet from the B.Ed. degree. Additionally, the petitioner's salary was stopped by an order passed the same day.

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the above order wherein the Court passed an interim order staying the order dated 09.10.2020, stating that it had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In its counter affidavit, State pleaded that at the time of application, the petitioner had shown his qualification as B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Ed., which was apparent from the approval letter dated 04.03.1993.

Petitioner denied that he had shown B.Ed. as his qualification and stated that the approval order wrongly mentioned B.Ed. as his qualification. He further stated that having a B.Ed. was only a preferential criterion, not an essential one. Subsequently, a notice was issued directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the appointment attained by him on the basis of a forged mark-sheet should not be cancelled and his salary not be recovered. Further, it was mentioned that should the petitioner fail to show cause, it would be taken as an admittance of his guilt. Follow-up notices and reminders were sent to the petitioner on multiple dates but were of no avail.

Finally, petitioner submitted his reply on 22.06.2021 stating that he did not hold a B.Ed. degree and that he had no concern with the forged B.Ed. mark-sheet. He further reiterated his point that having a B.Ed. degree was only a desirable criterion and not an essential one for holding the post he had been appointed to. However, on 11.03.2022, the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. passed an order declaring the petitioner's appointment to be without qualification, removing him from service.

Petitioner challenged the validity of the above order by filing Writ A No. 6500 of 2022. In this, the Court passed an order directing an inquiry into all the public servants that were involved in the regularisation and grant of selection grade to the petitioner since 2008 and to hold those guilty, accountable. The Principal Secretary, Secondary Education filed an affidavit stating that an enquiry was conducted as per order dated 04.05.2022 and five officers were found guilty with regard to the regularisation of the petitioner. However, it was mentioned that all those officers had retired from service and that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against them under Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and the Committee of Management both filed counters clarifying the eligibility criteria and the information provided by the university, respectively. The Committee of Management stated that the petitioner's B.Ed. mark-sheet was forged and he had no reasons to justify the same. Further, the Committee of Management, Janta Inter College filed Special Appeal No. 39 of 2023 against the interim order dated 04.05.2022 in Writ A No. 6500 of 2022, which was dismissed.

Thereafter, petitioner filed for contempt due to the non-compliance with the interim order dated 04.05.2022 in Writ A No. 6500 of 2022 and the Contempt Court passed an order in his favour whereby salary of the district inspector of schools was withheld. In response, the district inspector of schools filed a Special Appeal which was allowed and the order dated 18.01.2023 was modified.

Petitioner then submitted representations to register his name on the Human Resources Portal to prepare his pension papers and retired on 31.03.2024. Post-retirement, he submitted further representations for payment of pension, and filed a writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 4 to prepare the papers regarding payment of pension to the petitioner and forward the same to the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, and to direct the respondents to pay pension and other retiral dues for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher to the petitioner.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, where the Supreme Court held that

“A judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what can be read into it by implication or by assigning an assumed intention to the judges, and inferring from it a proposition of law which the judges have not specifically laid down in the pronouncement.”

Further, relying on Reena Devi v. State of U.P and 4 Ors., the Allahabad High Court held that where a person secured government employment on the basis of a forged mark-sheet, he would become a beneficiary of an illegal and fraudulent appointment, which would be illegal and void ab initio.

The Court observed that the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the subject of civics included a B.Ed. degree. It stated that upon verification by the University, the petitioner's B.Ed. degree was found to be forged. Additionally, it stated that had the petitioner not claimed that he possessed a B.Ed. degree in the first place, there was no reason for the authorities to include that as a part of his qualifications in the service record. It was also observed that had the authorities erroneously mentioned this criterion by themselves, it was always open to the petitioner to point the same out, and get it changed. The petitioner, however, chose not to do so.

The Court held that even if it was the petitioner's contention that B.Ed. was not an essential criterion but a preferential one, then even as him, B.Ed. was not an irrelevant qualification that would have no effect on the selection of the candidates. This was because those with a preferential qualification would be given a preference over other candidates who only possessed the essential qualification.

Further, Justice Vidyarthi observed that the claim that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to hear was not true. As per the inquiry committee's findings, the petitioner was given ample opportunity for hearing, and it was only after that that the resolution for his termination was passed. The Court also found the medical reasons submitted by the petitioner for not replying to the original notice to be without grounds.

“Where a person secures appointment on the basis of a forged mark-sheet or certificate or appointment letter and on that basis he or she has been inducted in Government service then he becomes beneficiary of illegal and fraudulent appointment. Such an appointment is illegal and void ab initio,” held the Allahabad High Court in Reena Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Finding that the petitioner had gained employment based on a forged mark sheet, the Court found the initial appointment of the petitioner to be null and void. Accordingly, it was held that there were no irregularities in the impugned orders as the petitioner had secured his job by means of fraud, further disentitling him from any retiral dues. However, the Court stated that since it had already passed an order allowing him to continue in service at an earlier date, the amounts already paid as salary to him would not be recovered.

Accordingly, all three writ petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 1064 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order