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

2026 Supreme(All) 284

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Preeti Jaiswal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 11875 of 2025
Decided On : 03-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siddharth Khare
For the Respondent: Ashish Kumar (nagvanshi), C.S.C., Chandan Sharma

An appointment secured through fraudulent documents is void ab initio, and no formal inquiry is required for cancellation; fraud vitiates all actions taken under such circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B - U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Cancellation of appointment of Assistant Teacher - Action based on fraudulently obtained mark sheet - Petitioner not provided with proper inquiry prior to dismissal - Court held that no inquiry needed when fraud is established - Order of impugned action upheld as valid. (Paras 100-144)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2010 based on her Bachelor of Arts degree, faced termination on grounds of fraud regarding her mark sheet, prompting her to challenge the cancellation of her appointment through a writ petition. (Paras 68-70)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the cancellation was justified due to the manipulative nature of the documentation provided by the petitioner as well as established discrepancies between the original records and the submitted mark sheet. (Paras 84-89)

Issues: The primary legal questions included the validity of the inquiry that led to the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment, the requirement for formal cancellation of the degree by the university, and the impact of fraud on the validity of employment. (Paras 80-81)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that any appointment obtained through fraudulent means is void ab initio and requires no formal inquiry regarding misconduct, as the fundamental validity of the appointment is at stake. (Paras 82-83)

Result: Writ petition dismissed, and the impugned order upholding the cancellation of appointment is affirmed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed challenging suspension. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner’s educational qualifications and appointment details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. process of verification of petitioner’s degree. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. grounds for challenging appointment cancellation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. inquiry committee recommendations mentioned. (Para 23 , 24)
6. respondent's defense regarding the inquiry and suspension. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
7. fraudulent actions leading to the annulment of appointment. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
8. discrepancies in mark sheets and tampering. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
9. court's observations on procedure and validity. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
10. court's reasoning on procedural adherence and application of fraud principles. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79)
11. legal principles governing employment based on false documents. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84)
12. framework surrounding void appointments. (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129)
13. clarification of the legal stance on fraudulent appointments. (Para 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134)
14. principles related to fraudulent documents. (Para 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139)
15. final adjudication and order. (Para 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144)

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 and perused the record.

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

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur.

(ii) A writ, order or direction of suitable nature restraining the respondents from interfering with the working of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher at Prathmik Vidyalay Jangal Dumri No.1, Development Block Bhathat, District Gorakhpur and to pay the petitioner her full monthly salary of the said post regularly every month.

(iii) Any other relief as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the educational qualification of the petitioner is High School, Intermediate, Bachelor of Arts Degree, Bachelor of Education and Special BTC Training Course, 2008. In the year 2008 selection proceedings were undertaken by the State Government for admission to Special BTC Training Course 2008 to such candidates who possessed some other teacher’s training qualification.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner also applied in pursuance thereof, and was selected and underwent training at District Institute of Education & Training, Gorakhpur. On successful completion of Special BTC Training Course 2008, the petitioner was issued a certificate dated 21.12.2009. Upon declaration of the result of Special BTC Training Course, the petitioner became entitled for automatic appointment as an Assistant Teacher, accordingly, based upon the result of Special BTC Training Course, 2008, the petitioner was issued appointment order dated 06.02.2010.

5. The petitioner forthwith joined and thereafter has been working continuously up to the satisfaction of her superiors. The work and conduct of the petitioner has been fully satisfactory. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time was posted at Prathmik Vidyalaya Jangal Dumri No.1, Development Block Bhathat, District Gorakhpur. The petitioner has been paid her regular monthly salary up to the month of June 2025.

6. The petitioner passed her Bachelor of Arts Course as a student of St. Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur, affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (in short ‘Gorakhpur University’). The aforesaid degree as awarded to th

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