Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
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 1
Fraudulent appointments in public service are void ab initio, and individuals cannot claim rights or benefits from such appointments.
No opportunity of hearing is warranted when employment is secured through fraudulent means; fraudulent appointments necessitate strict scrutiny to uphold integrity in education.
An appointment obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is void ab initio, and procedural safeguards do not apply in such cases.
Fraud vitiates all proceedings; employment obtained through fraudulent means does not require adherence to procedural protections under disciplinary rules.
Employment obtained through fraudulent documentation does not require adherence to formal disciplinary procedures, as fraud vitiates employment.
Fraudulent appointments are void ab initio, and individuals securing employment through deceit cannot claim protections under Article 311 of the Constitution.
An employee cannot be held guilty of fraud or forgery without clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation, especially when documentation discrepancies arise from administrative errors.
An appointment obtained through fraudulent means is null and void, and no departmental inquiry is required to terminate such service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
