Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J
Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 20140 of 2023
Decided on : 25-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Verma, Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, M.S. Chauhan, Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, Shriprakash Shrivastava
For the Respondent: Shashi Prakash Singh

Fraudulent appointments in public service are void ab initio, and individuals cannot claim rights or benefits from such appointments.

Headnote:(A) Appointment in Public Service - Fraud - The appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was declared null and void due to procurement through forged documents (Paras 10, 27, 35) - The cancellation did not require a hearing as it was established that the original appointment was invalid from inception due to fraud.

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The requirement for a hearing is context-dependent; where fraud is found, the principles may not apply as rigorously (Paras 18, 34).

(C) Employment Rights - An appointment obtained through fraud is void ab initio and cannot confer any rights or benefits (Paras 11, 36).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher but faced cancellation of appointment due to allegations of forged documents, failing to produce valid educational credentials during scrutiny. (

Findings of Court:
The appointment was illegitimate due to fraudulent actions; no rights arose from such an appointment.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the appointment was justified without an inquiry; if the petitioner sought relief despite fraudulent actions.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud vitiates all acts, including appointments; thus, no right can arise from a fraudulent appointment.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to appointment cancellation (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's contentions regarding appointment status (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. respondent's concerns over authenticity of documents (Para 7)
4. analysis of fraudulent appointments (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. precedence on fraudulent appointments (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. verification and consequences of fraudulent documentation (Para 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35)
7. dismissal of writ petition (Para 37)

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shriprakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred, inter alia, challenging the order dated 6.10.2022, passed by Respondent No.2, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher has been rendered null and void, and a consequential direction for recovery of the salary paid has also been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following contentions:-

i) The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide order dated 10.08.2010, and the appointment letter was issued by Respondent No.2 on the same date. The petitioner discharged his duties honestly, and there were no complaints against him.

ii) Subsequently, the District Basic Education Officer issued a letter dated 26.06.2020, calling the petitioner to appear on 02.07.2020 to explain the documents produced at the time of appointment.

iii) Further, another letter dated 14.08.2020 was issued, requiring the petitioner to submit documents on 17.08.2020 and appear before the Block Education Officer. The petitioner was again required to be present before the Block Education Officer vide letter dated 26.06.2020.

iv) On 13.06.2022, the petitioner appeared before the Block Education Officer and submitted the relevant documents, i.e., his appointment letter, mark sheets and certificates of High School, Intermediate, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) as well as BTC training certificate, and domicile certificate.

v) Notwithstanding the submission of documents, Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 6.10.2022, declaring the Petitioner's appointment null and void ab initio and directing recovery of the salary paid to him.

vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from fundamental infirmities. Firstly, a copy of the impugned order has not been served upon the petitioner, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the mandate of law. Secondly, the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, sans application of mind, rendering it illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide.

vii) The petitioner appeared before Respondent No.2 on 13.06.2022 and submitted all the relevant educational certificates, which have not been considered while passing the impugned order.

viii) It is contended that if the original documents were suspected to be forged, a thorough inquiry should have been conducted by the concerned Board or University, which has not been done.

ix) It is further submitted that the entire exercise appears to have been done based on a complaint moved by one Kamlesh Kumar Yadav.

x) It is contended that the Petitioner is a resident of Village Haldi Rampur, Tehsil Belthra Road, District Ballia, and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, specifically Hindu Chamar. The petitioner's date of birth is 20.06.1982, as per his academic records. He studied up to Class 5th at Prathamic Vidyalaya Taranv, Ghazipur and subsequently, completed Class 6th to 12th at Hanuman Singh Inter College, Devkali, Gazipur (U.P.). The Transfer Certificate, issued on 15th December 2023 by the Principal of the institution, has been appended as Annexure No.SA-3 of the 2^nd supplementary affidavit. Perusal of the document reveals no evidence of manipulation, forgery, or cheating by the Petit