SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Deepa Magleena - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
WRIT –A No. -10843 of 2025
Decided On : 17-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Jigar Khare, Shagun K. Saran, Yash Singhal
For the Respondent: Srishti Gupta, C.S.C., Shruti Taneja

Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institutions' rights under Article 30(1) are not absolute.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 - Teacher appointment - Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher based on alleged forged TET certificate, declared void ab initio - Court emphasized that minority institutions retain autonomy under Article 30(1) but must adhere to reasonable regulations for maintaining educational standards - Appointment not made against sanctioned post before inclusion in grant-in-aid list, hence entitlement to absorption denied. (Paras 1, 102, 108, 114)

(B) Educational Qualifications - Forged credentials - Court held that an appointment obtained fraudulently does not create enforceable rights, thus the petitioner cannot claim employment protection despite her long tenure. (Paras 86, 110, 113)

(C) Procedural Violations - The previous court's directives were violated when suspension orders were issued without proper inquiry or opportunity for hearing - Respondent's actions characterized as arbitrary and in bad faith, contrary to principles of natural justice. (Paras 12, 113)

(D) Final findings indicated that governmental oversight is essential in verifying credentials to prevent fraudulent appointments, emphasizing the institutional duty to ensure compliance while respecting minority rights. (Paras 87, 114)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's employment history and contract details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court's recognition of minority institution rights. (Para 5 , 14 , 28 , 34 , 51)
3. arguments against the arbitrary and illegal actions of respondents. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22)
4. legal validity of appointment and fraud implications. (Para 62 , 78 , 104)
5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 115 , 116)

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Yash Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Srishti Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2025, (Letter No.20827-35/2024-25) passed by respondent no.2.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the impugned suspension order dated 01.03.2025 passed by respondent no.3.

(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to ensure payment of withheld salary from 25.06.2024 till date and further the regular salary payable from month to month to the petitioner.

(d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay interest upon the arrears of salary till the date of actual payment.

(e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefit other services as Assistant Teacher, Hindi (Primary) at St. Joseph Girls High School, Moradabad.

(f) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(g) To award the cost of this petition to the petitioner.”

3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Hindi, (Primary) on 01.07.1991, on a contractual basis, in an Institution, namely, St. Joseph's Girls Junior High School, Civil Lines, Moradabad, (in short ‘the institution’), which is a minority Institution established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The contract of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and was operative without any time gap. The Institution in question came into grant-in-aid list in the year 2015, accordingly, appointments were made in the Institution and the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 26.06.2015. The petitioner took charge as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on 01.07.2015 before the Manager of the Institution, an experience certificate has been issued to the petitioner by the Government aided Institution, mentioning that the petitioner has been continuously working in the primary wing and was thereafter appointed in the Junior department as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on 01.07.2015, thus, it clearly transpires from the experience certificate that the petitioner had been regularly working from 1991 till 2015, and thereafter she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the aided Institution.

4. On a complaint made by one Ashutosh Chauhan (which has been categorically denied by him through an affidavit) with respect to forged TET certificate of the petitioner being placed for obtaining appointment as Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to which, an inquiry was initiated regarding appointments made by the Manager of the said Institution in collusion with one Anuj Kumar, Principal of Janta Junior High School, Jargaon, Moradabad. Thereafter, respondent no.2, vide letter dated 25.06.2024 sought details from the petitioner with respect to her appointment and proceeded to stop the payment of salary and substance allowance was also not paid to her, therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.19101 of 2024 (Deepa Magleena vs. District Basic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top