1. Challenge to termination of appointment as assistant teacher on grounds of forged certificates and suppression of facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 21 , 31 , 32 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1402
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Anil Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 20118 of 2019
Decided On : 14-09-2026
Important Points
Retrospective cancellation of a previous appointment does not constitute "dismissal from service" under Rule 11 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Suppression of such facts is not a ground for termination unless disclosure was specifically required and the current appointment is based on forged documents.
Subject
Service Law - Employment Termination
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH BASIC EDUCATION TEACHERS SERVICE RULES : R.11
Headnote
(A) Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 11 - Uttar Pradesh Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 - Rule 3 - Termination of service - Retrospective cancellation of a previous appointment does not equate to "dismissal from service" for the purpose of statutory disqualification under Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules. (Para 36)
(B) Suppression of material facts - A candidate cannot be fastened with the charge of suppression in respect of information which they were never specifically called upon to disclose in the advertisement, application form, or verification form. (Para 37)
(C) Disciplinary Action - A confirmed employee cannot be terminated without a full-fledged departmental inquiry and adherence to the principles of natural justice; the authority cannot circumvent prescribed disciplinary procedures by labeling the action as a "cancellation of appointment." (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2015 based on educational qualifications obtained in 2011-12. In 2019, the appointing authority terminated the petitioner's services on the grounds that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that a previous appointment from 2004 had been cancelled retrospectively due to a forged B.Ed. certificate and that a criminal case had been lodged. The respondents contended that this suppression rendered the petitioner ineligible under Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner's 2015 appointment was based on genuine educational certificates and that the previous retrospective cancellation of appointment was not a "dismissal" as contemplated by Rule 11. It was further observed that the application process did not specifically require the disclosure of previous appointment cancellations or pending criminal cases.
Issues: Whether the retrospective cancellation of a previous appointment constitutes "dismissal from service" under Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules, and whether the non-disclosure of such cancellation justifies the termination of a subsequent appointment obtained through genuine qualifications without a departmental inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that retrospective cancellation of an appointment is not equivalent to dismissal. Furthermore, suppression is only actionable if the disclosure was a material condition specifically required by the recruitment rules or forms. Since the current appointment was based on genuine qualifications and no regular inquiry was conducted, the termination was disproportionate and legally unsustainable. (Paras 36, 37, 40)
Result: Impugned order dated 20.04.2019 is quashed, and the writ petition stands allowed.
(B) Suppression of material facts - A candidate cannot be fastened with the charge of suppression in respect of information which they were never specifically called upon to disclose in the advertisement, application form, or verification form. (Para 37)
(C) Disciplinary Action - A confirmed employee cannot be terminated without a full-fledged departmental inquiry and adherence to the principles of natural justice; the authority cannot circumvent prescribed disciplinary procedures by labeling the action as a "cancellation of appointment." (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2015 based on educational qualifications obtained in 2011-12. In 2019, the appointing authority terminated the petitioner's services on the grounds that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that a previous appointment from 2004 had been cancelled retrospectively due to a forged B.Ed. certificate and that a criminal case had been lodged. The respondents contended that this suppression rendered the petitioner ineligible under Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner's 2015 appointment was based on genuine educational certificates and that the previous retrospective cancellation of appointment was not a "dismissal" as contemplated by Rule 11. It was further observed that the application process did not specifically require the disclosure of previous appointment cancellations or pending criminal cases.
Issues: Whether the retrospective cancellation of a previous appointment constitutes "dismissal from service" under Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules, and whether the non-disclosure of such cancellation justifies the termination of a subsequent appointment obtained through genuine qualifications without a departmental inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that retrospective cancellation of an appointment is not equivalent to dismissal. Furthermore, suppression is only actionable if the disclosure was a material condition specifically required by the recruitment rules or forms. Since the current appointment was based on genuine qualifications and no regular inquiry was conducted, the termination was disproportionate and legally unsustainable. (Paras 36, 37, 40)
Result: Impugned order dated 20.04.2019 is quashed, and the writ petition stands allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
- appointment
- disciplinary proceedings
- termination
-
service law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amit Kumar Singh, Paras Nath Singh, Parmatma Nand Ojha
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Manu Singh
For the Petitioner: Amit Kumar Singh, Paras Nath Singh, Parmatma Nand Ojha
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Manu Singh
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no inquiry and procedural violation; respondent contended suppression of material fact and ineligibility under Rule 11. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
3. Cancellation not equivalent to dismissal; suppression not proven without specific application requirement; genuine qualifications cannot be annulled for unrelated antecedent events. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. Rule 11 disqualification requires dismissal; cancellation of earlier appointment with retrospective effect not equated to dismissal. (Para 36 , 40 )
5. Impugned termination order quashed; writ petition allowed. (Para 41 )
6. Whether cancellation of an earlier appointment with retrospective effect amounts to dismissal from service under Rule 11 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981?
No. Rule 11 disqualification applies only where there is an order of dismissal. Cancellation of appointment with retrospective effect does not equate to dismissal. (Para 24 , 36 , 40 )
7. Can an employee be held guilty of suppression of material fact where the advertisement or application form did not specifically require disclosure of that fact?
No. A candidate cannot be charged with suppression for information he was never called upon to disclose, as held in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. (Para 28 , 37 )
8. Whether termination for alleged suppression can be sustained without a demonstrable nexus between the suppression and the acquisition of the present appointment?
No. An appointment secured on genuine qualifications cannot be annulled for non-disclosure of an antecedent event with no bearing on eligibility or selection. (Para 40 )
9. Can the appointing authority circumvent the disciplinary procedure by describing the termination as cancellation of appointment?
No. The substance of the action, not its nomenclature, determines the procedure to be followed; a regular disciplinary inquiry is required. (Para 39 )
JUDGMENT :
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present petition has been instituted assailing the order dated 20.04.2019, passed by respondent No.4, the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2015 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the subjects of Science and Mathematics, the petitioner, being duly qualified, applied for appointment. He was called for counselling, whereupon his original educational testimonials were duly verified and deposited in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar.
4. Thereafter, an appointment letter dated 21.09.2015 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, appointing the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher (Mathematics) in a Basic School. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined his duties on 24.09.2015. His services were subsequently confirmed upon completion of the prescribed period of one year.
5. It is submitted that, after a lapse of nearly three years, the Block Education Officer, Mehndawal, Sant Kabir Nagar, by letter dated 18.04.2018, informed the petitioner that a complaint had been submitted by one Umesh Kumar Bhatt on 31.03.2018 alleging that the petitioner had secured his appointment on the basis of forged educational certificates. The petitioner was consequently directed to produce his original certificates for verification.
6. In compliance with the aforesaid communication, the petitioner submitted his self-attested educational testimonials by letter dated 23.04.2018, specifically stating that his original academic documents had already been deposited at the time of counselling and continued to remain in the custody of the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. Photostat copies of his educational certificates, commencing from the High School examination up to the TET qualification, were also furnished for the purposes of verification and inquiry.
7. However, on 07.05.2018, the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, purportedly acting on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, directed stoppage of the petitioner's salary, without conducting any inquiry or recording any finding regarding the genuineness or otherwise of his educational certificates.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted an application dated 07.07.2018, duly supported by an affidavit, before the District Basic Education Officer, categorically asserting that all his educational testimonials were genuine and that the complaint lodged against him was false and baseless. It was further stated that the process of verification of his certificates was still pending and, therefore, there was no justification for withholding his salary. The petitioner accordingly prayed for release of his salary.
9. As no effective action was taken on the aforesaid representation, the petitioner was constrained to institute Writ Petition No.23822 of 2018, Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, before this Court, challenging the order dated 07.05.2018 whereby payment of his salary had been stopped.
10. This Court, by order dated 14.11.2018, after taking note of the fact that the inquiry into the genuineness of the petitioner's certificates was still pending, found no justification for stoppage of his salary merely on that account. Accordingly, until further orders, the effect and operation of the order dated 07.05.2018 were stayed. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to institute contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the matter, the Block Education Officer, Mehnd
