2026 Supreme(Pat) 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
Amod Kumar Singh S/o Sri Satyanarayan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3898 of 2018
Decided On : 12-02-2026

IMPORTANT POINT
An educational marksheet cannot be deemed forged without proper inquiry and substantial evidence, while public appointment must adhere to merit-based selection principles under natural justice standards.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI, Rules 1 and 17 – A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate, nor can it be allowed to blow hot and cold in same breath – Judicial discipline demands consistency in pleadings, particularly where admissions have already been made – An admission, unless satisfactorily explained, constitutes substantive evidence against maker, and courts are slow to permit its withdrawal when such withdrawal would prejudice opposite party or alter nature of controversy – Procedural law governing amendments is intended to advance cause of justice, not to permit a litigant to retract admissions or fundamentally reconstruct its case at an advanced stage of adjudication – Allowing such amendment would undermine certainty of judicial proceedings and run contrary to principles of finality and fairness that guide writ jurisdiction. (Para 21)

Service Law – Dismissal – Cancellation of appointment as Block Teacher for submitting forged and fabricated mark-sheet – Finding that a candidate's marksheet is forged and fabricated entails grave civil consequences, impacting not only his academic standing but also his continued employment and reputation – Such a conclusion must be founded upon thorough inquiry, supported by unimpeachable documentary evidence, and preceded by adherence to Principles of Natural Justice – It does not appear that any regular or structured inquiry was conducted before petitioner's marksheet was branded as fabricated – There is no indication that document was subjected to forensic or expert verification, nor is there any categorical material to show that issuing authority had disowned marksheet – Mere discrepancy in aggregate, without anything further, cannot ipso facto lead to finding of forgery – Law draws clear distinction between an administrative mistake and a fraudulent document, and latter must be proved with higher degree of certainty – When foundational documents of authority themselves appear questionable, it would be legally unsafe to sustain serious charge of fabrication against petitioner solely on their basis – Suspicion surrounding respondents' own records weakens conclusiveness of allegation sought to be drawn therefrom. (Para 21)

Service Law – Dismissal – Cancellation of appointment as Block Teacher for submitting forged and fabricated mark-sheet – Requirement of compliance with rule of audi alteram partem – Before arriving at a determination so prejudicial in nature, authority was duty-bound to provide petitioner with notice of allegations, disclose materials relied upon, and afford him meaningful opportunity to respond – Any determination rendered in breach of these safeguards stands vitiated by procedural impropriety – Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and cannot be presumed from uncertain or disputed records – A quasi-judicial authority is expected to base its conclusions on cogent evidence rather than conjecture – In circumstances where respondents' own documents are under cloud, declaration of marksheet as forged becomes all the more untenable – Where two views are possible, one pointing to clerical error and other to deliberate fabrication, authority must adopt course supported by evidence rather than presumption – A quasi-judicial determination cannot substitute suspicion for proof – Declaration of petitioner's marksheet as "forged and fabricated," having been rendered without a duly conducted inquiry, without substantiating documentary evidence, and in breach of principles of natural justice, is unsustainable in eye of law – Such a finding, being procedurally flawed and evidentially unsupported, cannot be allowed to stand. (Para 21)

Service Law – Dismissal – Cancellation of appointment as Block Teacher for submitting forged and fabricated mark-sheet – Additional marks could only be awarded in narrowly circumscribed situations – Such as marginal deficiency for passing, prevention of abnormal results, or other structured moderation exercises uniformly applied – Petitioner does not fall within any such category – A candidate is presumed to know his own performance and marks obtained in individual subjects – When sum of subject-wise marks does not correspond with declared aggregate, anomaly is neither latent nor technical; it is apparent on face of record – Petitioner relied upon inflated aggregate to secure a higher position in merit list and ultimately obtained appointment – Plea that Board remained inactive for several years does not dilute petitioner's obligation to act fairly, particularly when public employment where merit is governing criterion, is involved – Doctrine protecting long standing entries cannot be invoked by a party who had knowledge of mistake and nevertheless elected to benefit from it – Equity aids vigilant, not those who knowingly capitalize on an error – Petitioner's inability to establish any lawful grant of grace marks, coupled with apparent mathematical inconsistency, militates against argument of innocent reliance – Public employment is governed by constitutional mandates of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 – Permitting a demonstrably erroneous aggregate to continue merely because it went undetected for some time would amount to perpetuating an illegality – There can be no estoppel against law, and administrative lapses cannot ripen into enforceable rights when they infringe upon legitimate claims of others – Court of equity cannot sanction a situation where an error distorting merit is allowed to survive simply due to efflux of time – Stability in administration is desirable, but not at cost of fairness in selection – Admitted error in recording of aggregate marks cannot be permitted to subsist merely on account of lapse of time – Petitioner is not entitled to claim continuation in service or any consequential benefit on strength of an erroneous aggregate that materially affected merit list – Authority directed to undertake fresh preparation of merit list on the basis of verified and legally admissible records, and thereafter carry process of appointment to its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with applicable rules. (Paras 21 and 22)

Service Law – Appointment – Ordinarily, merit list constitutes foundation of any public selection process, and challenge to an appointment is often accompanied by a corresponding challenge to merit list from which such appointment flows – However, this principle cannot be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner so as to defeat larger mandate of fairness in public employment – Public appointments must conform not only to procedural regularity but also to substantive fairness – If it is demonstrated that a candidate secured placement on strength of marks erroneously awarded, appointment becomes vulnerable, as no person can claim vested right on the basis of a mistake – An error which strikes at root of merit cannot be permitted to perpetuate merely because it remained unchallenged at an earlier stage – A candidate who knowingly benefits from an apparent irregularity cannot later invoke technical pleas to shield such advantage – Doctrine that one must approach process with clean hands applies with equal force to matters of public selection – Acceptance of a benefit, despite awareness of its erroneous origin, cannot be equated with an innocent or bona fide mistake; rather, it raises serious doubts regarding fairness of claim itself. (Para 21)

Cases Referred:

Nagubai Ammal, vs. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593; Premlata alias Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee, AIR 2022 SC 1560 – Relied.

Board of Secondary Education, Assam vs. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman, (2003) 12 SCC 408 – Distinguished.