Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

Vikram Singh Negi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 254 of 2023 with WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1275 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1939 of 2019, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 354 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 531 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 633 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1283 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1294 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1301 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1691 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1693 of 2020, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 265 of 2021, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 514 of 2021, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1312 of 2021, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 679 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 893 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1008 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1355 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1521 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1818 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1979 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 2090 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 98 of 2023, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 465 of 2023, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 466 of 2023, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 877 of 2023.
Decided On : 03-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Alok Mahra, Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Anil Anthwal, Mr. D.K. Bankoti, Mr. Lalit Samant, Mr. S.S. Yadav, Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, Mr. Susheel Kumar, Mr. Anand Singh Mer, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Pradeep Hariya, Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Mr. Narain Dutt, Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel and Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal and Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder, Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral and Mr. Vikas Pande, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINT
Fraudulent appointments are void ab initio, and individuals securing employment through deceit cannot claim protections under Article 311 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Termination of services of teachers on grounds of forged educational certificates - Petitioners' appointments declared void ab initio due to lack of qualifications - The court emphasized that fraud unravels all, and those who secure appointments through deceit cannot claim protection under Article 311. (Paras 12, 34, 36)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court held that individuals who obtained employment through fraudulent means are not entitled to the procedural protections typically afforded to civil servants under Article 311. (Paras 12, 34)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as teachers but had their services terminated after it was discovered that their educational certificates were forged. They challenged the termination orders, claiming violations of procedural rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were ineligible for appointment due to the fraudulent nature of their qualifications and upheld the termination orders.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners were entitled to protections under Article 311 and the validity of their appointments based on forged certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that fraud vitiates all, and individuals who secure appointments through deceit cannot claim any rights or protections under the law.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed as Teacher in different Government Primary Schools and Government High Schools. Their services were terminated on the ground that they are not qualified for such appointment and the Certificate/Degree produced by them were found to be forged. Petitioners have challenged the termination order passed against them, in these writ petitions.

2. Allegation against petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No.514 of 2021 and Writ Petition (S/S) No.1312 of 2021 is that they secured appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste; although, they do not belong to Scheduled Caste and the caste certificate produced by them for securing appointment was found to be fake.

3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.254 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed.

4. Vikram Singh Negi, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, in Rudraprayag in 2005, has filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.254 of 2023, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned termination order dated 14.10.2022 passed by respondent no.4 (contained as Annexure No.27 to this writ petition) and appellate order dated 18.11.2022 passed by respondent no.3 (contained as Annexure No.29 to this writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service and back wages with interest.”

5. As per the pleadings made in the Writ Petition (S/S) No.254 of 2023, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 30.10.2005. His services were terminated by District Education Officer (Elementary), Rudraprayag vide order dated 14.10.2022, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

6. The impugned order is on record as Annexure No.27 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said order reveals that complaints were received that B.Ed. Degree produced by petitioner at the time of his appointment, is fake; Deputy Education Officer, Jakholi referred his B.Ed. mark sheet for verification to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the University replied that the mark sheet was not issued by the University; based on University’s reply, a charge sheet was issued to petitioner on 06.07.2017 and petitioner, with his reply, submitted an envelope, allegedly issued by the University, containing a letter, in which the University verified his mark sheet; thereafter, the matter was referred to Special Investigation Team and when the officer of Special Investigation Team visited the University for verification of the B.Ed. Degree/Mark Sheet of petitioner, then the University issued a letter dated 25.05.2018 stating that “the above mentioned details are not as per university enrolment & confidential record. It seems otherwise”. Based on the report submitted by Inspector, Special Investigation Team, petitioner was put under suspension and, on 20.07.2018, charge sheet was issued to him and since the reply given by petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were terminated on 28.08.2018. Petitioner successfully challenged his termination by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.952 of 2019, and he was reinstated, thereafter enquiry was again initiated against him, which resulted in passing of the termination order, impugned in this writ petition.

7. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated by way of punishment, therefore, provision contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution are attracted. He further submits that although charge sheet was issued to petitioner, however, list of witnesses was not