Suman Kumari vs State Of U P - 2026 Supreme(All) 563

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 563

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Suman Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U P And Others – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 8189 of 2020
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Harish Chandra Pratap, Rahul Mishra, Syed Ali Murtaza, Syed Hasan Mujtaba Isfahani
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Devesh Vikram, Gagan Mehta, Shivam Yadav

Headnote:(A) Fraudulent Appointment - Principles of natural justice - Appointment obtained on basis of forged or fabricated educational qualifications confers no enforceable right - Fraud vitiates every solemn act - In cases involving fraud, forgery or misrepresentation, strict compliance of departmental inquiry procedures may not be necessary where the foundation of appointment is void ab initio - Appointments secured on the basis of fake qualifications amount to fraud upon public employment. (Paras 32, 33)

(B) Judicial Precedents - Principle of parity - Interim orders passed in independent matters are based on peculiar facts and do not constitute binding precedents under relevant constitutional law - Reliance on pending litigation in higher courts does not dilute the binding effect of settled judgments rendered by coordinate or larger benches. (Paras 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged as a teacher, challenged an order dismissing her from service upon discovery that the educational degree submitted for her initial selection was allegedly fake or tampered with. The petitioner argued that the dismissal was arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice due to the lack of a formal departmental inquiry, and contended that she was entitled to protection based on parity with similarly situated individuals who received interim relief in other pending matters.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the authorities arrived at a reasoned decision after verifying records. It held that because the underlying educational document was proven to be fraudulent, the appointment was void ab initio, thereby negating the necessity for the standard departmental inquiry protocols required for confirmed employees. The court further clarified that interim relief granted in individual matters does not create a binding precedent that overrides established legal principles regarding the invalidity of fraudulent credentials.

Issues: The main issues were whether an appointment secured through a falsified educational qualification necessitates a formal disciplinary inquiry, and whether a petitioner can claim interim relief based on parity with other matters when the substantive legal controversy has already been settled by higher courts.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud vitiates all legal transactions; therefore, an appointment obtained via forged documents is invalid from the start (void ab initio), precluding the need for standard disciplinary procedures. Settled judicial pronouncements cannot be disregarded simply based on interim orders passed elsewhere, as such orders do not establish guiding legal principles or binding precedents.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. restoration of petitions based on sufficient cause and procedural liberty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background showing service history, qualifications, and termination notice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. petitioner's claim on principles of natural justice and service rule violations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. binding precedent status of sit investigations and fake degree cases. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. interim orders do not constitute binding precedents to override settled law. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. fraud vitiates employment; no disciplinary inquiry required for void ab initio appointments. (Para 32 , 33)
7. dismissal of writ petition due to lack of merit. (Para 34)

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Ref : Order on Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.16 of 2026

1. The present restoration application has been filed for recalling the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court, by which instant writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous.

2. Application has been filed within time. In view of the liberty granted by the order dated 06.04.2026 and the reasons as disclosed in the affidavit, which are satisfactory, the restoration application is allowed

3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is restored to its original number.

Ref : Order on writ petition

4. Heard Mr. Harish Chandra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and Mr.Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed her High School and Intermediate examinations from the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. in the years 1989 and 1991 respectively. Thereafter, she pursued the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Sri Tikaram Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Aligarh, affiliated with Agra University, in the year 1992 and qualified the same in the year 1994. Subsequently, she pursued and passed M.A. in Political Science in the year 1996.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner pursued the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2003–04 from R.K. Gupta Memorial Institute of Technology and Management, Agra, which is duly recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, Government of India, New Delhi.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner applied for Special BTC Training, 2008 (Examination Year 2010), on 05.02.2009, wherein all her educational certificates were duly submitted and verified. The petitioner successfully completed the Special BTC Training, 2008 and the certificate in that regard was issued on 01.06.2010.

8. It is further submitted that being duly eligible, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools in District Badaun and, after due selection, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School situated in District Badaun, where she joined on 30.07.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a notice dated 13.07.2020 was issued by respondent no. 4, wherein it was mentioned that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra had declared the B.Ed. degrees of 2823 candidates pertaining to the academic session 2004–05 to be fake. The notice further referred to the observations made in Writ Petition No. 190 of 2020 and also stated that the petitioner’s name appeared in the list of fake B.Ed. degrees available on the official website of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner sought time to submit her reply and also produced a certificate issued by the then Secretary of the Society managing the concerned college to establish that she had in fact pursued the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2004–05 from the concerned institution affiliated to the University. The petitioner also submitted a representation request