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) 715

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 
Mukesh Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 511 of 2026
Decided On : 21-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Rai

Termination of long-standing service based on alleged simultaneous academic qualifications is legally unsustainable without a formal disciplinary inquiry, particularly when no statutory prohibition exists against simultaneous study and there is no concrete proof of fraudulent submission of documents.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 - U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Termination of service - Requirements of natural justice - Necessity of regular departmental inquiry - Termination based purely on notices without following prescribed disciplinary procedure is violative of fundamental principles of law. (Paras 34, 48)

(B) Service Law - Educational qualifications - Allegation of simultaneous completion of two courses - In the absence of a specific statutory prohibition, the simultaneous pursuit of two courses during the same academic session does not constitute a valid ground for dismissal or disqualification - Improbability alone is insufficient to nullify credentials without concrete proof of forgery or fraud. (Paras 31, 43, 44)

(C) Doctrine of proportionality - Long-standing service of nearly three decades - Where there is no finding of fraud or misrepresentation in initial appointment, long and unblemished service acts as an equitable barrier against abrupt termination without due process. (Paras 27, 46, 47)

Facts of the case:
An employee served in a teaching capacity for approximately twenty-nine years. Despite multiple internal committee findings clearing the employee of allegations regarding his academic certificates, the employing authority terminated his services alleging he had simultaneously pursued two regular courses in the same academic session. No formal departmental inquiry was conducted prior to the termination order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination order lacked evidentiary support regarding fraud and failed to adhere to mandatory disciplinary procedures. As no statute prohibits simultaneous study, and the certificates were never invalidated by competent authorities, the termination was arbitrary.

Issues: The primary issues were whether an employee’s services could be terminated for allegedly obtaining simultaneous degrees without a formal disciplinary inquiry, and whether such an action could be sustained after nearly three decades of unblemished service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that termination of long-standing service without a formal departmental inquiry, as mandated by service rules, is procedurally flawed and violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, in the absence of a statutory embargo, simultaneous pursuit of academic courses cannot be treated as a ground for disqualification, especially when the credentials remain valid and un-cancelled.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned termination order is quashed.

Table of Content
1. procedural initiation and relief sought in writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. basis of appointment and historical employment record. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. inquiry history and the contested termination order. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. competing contentions regarding simultaneous qualification and due process. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. absence of statutory prohibition against simultaneous acquisition of qualifications. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
6. long-standing service bars intervention absent fraud or misrepresentation. (Para 46 , 47)
7. requirement of formal departmental inquiry under service rules. (Para 48)
8. deficiencies in administrative action rendering order arbitrary. (Para 49 , 50)
9. quashing of the impugned termination order and allowance of writ. (Para 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aditendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has been instituted, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

3. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Headmaster of Composite Vidyalaya, Jewar, Development Block Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

4. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of his regular monthly salary, along with arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2025 till date, within a stipulated period.

5. Placing the aforesaid facts on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses the following educational qualifications:-

“(i) The petitioner appeared in the High School Certificate Examination in the year 1991 from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, as a student of Krishna Sahai Gokul Chandra Inter College, Dhanauri Khurd, District Bulandshahr.

(ii) The petitioner pursued his studies in Class XI during the academic session 1992–93 from Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera.

(iii) The petitioner obtained a Certificate in Physical Education during the academic session 1993–94 from Bharati Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman Vyayam Nagar, Amravati, Maharashtra.

(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner appeared as a regular student in the Intermediate Certificate Examination for the academic session 1994-95 from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, being a student of Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera.”

6. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 23.03.1995, which provided for the appointment of candidates possessing a Certificate in Physical Education as untrained teachers with a stipulation for imparting in-service training post-appointment, the State authorities issued an advertisement dated 27.12.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for such appointments. The petitioner, being duly eligible, submitted his application in response thereto.

7. However, as no interview call letter was issued to him, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 11804 of 1997 (Rajesh Singh and two others vs. BSA, Bulandshahr and others), wherein this Hon’ble Court, vide interim order dated 04.04.1997, directed consideration of his candidature. In compliance thereof, the petitioner’s case was considered by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bulandshahr.

8. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 24.04.1997, whereby he was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher and posted at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jewar, District Bulandshahr. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner duly joined his duties on 25.04.1997.

9. 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