No opportunity of hearing is warranted when employment is secured through fraudulent means; fraudulent appointments necessitate strict scrutiny to uphold integrity in education.

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tej Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, vide which, appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled. It is further prayed to direct the respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to join the service on the post of Assistant Teacher in Uchchtar Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bardiha Dalpat, Vikas Khand-Salempur, District- Deoria.

3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 27.07.2010 and she joined at Uchchatar Prathmik Vidyayala, Bardiha Dalpat, Vikas Khand- Salempur, District- Deoria. All her educational documents as well as other relevant documents were scrutinized by the concerned respondents, after her joining, and the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Teacher, there being no complaint against her till date. After nearly 15 years of service, it appears that the educational documents and other relevant documents of the petitioner were again verified. On the basis of some complaint and without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing and following the due procedure as required under law, the order impugned has been passed cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, which is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The other grounds have also been taken in the petition as regards the fact that the documents were verified after which the petitioner was allowed to continue for the last 15 years, therefore, there was no occasion of acting upon a complaint made by her relative in order to get the documents verified again and to pass the order impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, submits that detailed order has been passed wherein all the educational documents and the domicile certificate have been verified by the competent authority as well as the STF wherein it has been found that all the documents as placed at the time of obtaining appointment were found to be forged. Though a proper notice dated 02.07.2025 has been given to the petitioner to which she has not submitted any reply nor has placed any documents to show that the educational certificates, domicile certificate and other relevant documents placed at the time of appointment were genuine. In the petition also no certificates have been placed on record to prove that the appointment has been sought by placing genuine documents. He further submits that from the order impugned also it is clear that the educational documents and domicile certificate of some other candidate namely, Garima Singh has been used to obtain appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA further submits that it is a settled position of law that no opportunity of hearing or detailed inquiry is warranted in cases where an appointment has been secured by practicing fraud. This issue has already been discussed in several judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of UP and 4 Others , in Writ A No.11846 of 2025, Shiv Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others , in Writ A No.12839 of 2023, Pankaj Mathur vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others , in Writ A No.12336 of 2025 and Deepa Magleena vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others , in Writ-A No.10843 of 2025. The same has been held in the c