The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has affirmed the removal of an elementary school teacher who secured her appointment using a forged diploma from an institution that never existed. In a firm ruling, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav, rejected the appellant’s plea that her 14-year tenure and subsequent acquisition of a legitimate B.Ed. degree should act as mitigating factors to save her from termination. The court held that public employment obtained through deceptive practices constitutes a fraud upon the constitutional process, rendering the initial appointment void ab initio and ineligible for equitable relief.

The appellant, Manjit Kaur, had been appointed to the post of Elementary Teacher Training (ETT) teacher on December 29, 2006, after submitting a two-year Diploma in Elementary Education purportedly issued by the Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad in Shripalpur. Years into her service, the State of Punjab discovered that the educational institution in question was not merely unrecognized, but fundamentally non-existent. Following a formal departmental inquiry, the charges against the appellant were substantiated, confirming that her essential qualification for the post was a fabricated document. Consequently, the state authorities terminated her services on March 17, 2021.

Challenging this decision before a Single Judge, the appellant had argued that her long-standing, blemish-free career should be taken into account to allow her to continue in service until the age of superannuation. When that petition was dismissed, she approached the Division Bench, further contending that her recent completion of a B.Ed. degree from a recognized institution should retroactively validate her eligibility for the teaching position. She cited previous judicial precedents, specifically in the cases of Ram Bhagat Sharma vs. State of Haryana and Pafna vs. Home-cum-Education Secretary, Chandigarh , to argue that employees in similar straits had been granted opportunities to rectify their qualifications while in service.

However, the Division Bench remained unconvinced by these arguments. During the proceedings, the counsel for the appellant conceded the fact that the institution issuing the primary qualification did not exist. The court observed that such a concession fundamentally altered the nature of the case compared to instances where a degree is obtained from an existing, though unrecognised, university.

“Once the said institute which awarded a qualification, does not exist, how could a Diploma be issued by such an institute, which Diploma was purportedly used by the appellant not only to gain eligibility to compete for the post but also to get selected,” the Bench noted in its detailed order.

The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India versus Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and ors , which established that equity and sympathy have no place when an appointment is tainted by deception. The Bench emphasized that the appellant’s employment had deprived a genuinely eligible candidate of a livelihood and a position within the public sector. To allow the appellant to remain in her role after the discovery of her fraudulent documents would be to place the interests of a dishonest candidate above those of meritorious, law-abiding applicants.

Addressing the reliance placed on the Pafna case, the court clarified that previous rulings granting leniency were based on specific, peculiar factual circumstances where institutions were in existence but not recognized. The Bench distinguished the current matter, asserting that such relief cannot be generalized into a rule to protect candidates who rely on outright forgeries. The court ruled that the principles of natural justice do not operate as a "straitjacket" and cannot be invoked to shield an individual who has obtained public employment through calculated fraud.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument regarding the subsequent acquisition of a B.Ed. degree. The judges maintained that eligibility must be determined based on the requirements stipulated at the time of the initial application and selection process. As the appellant did not possess the mandatory Diploma at the relevant time, her subsequent attainment of a different degree could not retrospectively fix the illegality of her initial entry into the state’s workforce.

The court reiterated that the consequences of producing fake documents must be suffered by the individual regardless of how many years they managed to continue in the post. The ruling highlighted the systemic damage caused by such appointments, as the bench noted that allowing the appellant to continue would directly undermine the rights of eligible individuals who were unfairly ousted from the selection process due to the petitioner’s fraudulent claims.

The judgment brings a definitive end to the appellant's service litigation. The Division Bench ultimately concluded that there were no grounds for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge, who had correctly identified that the appellant's reliance on a fake document from a non-existent source vitiated her right to public employment. By dismissing the appeal, the High Court has reiterated the legal position that the integrity of public service recruitment processes must be protected against the infiltration of candidates who bypass merit through deceit. The state’s order of removal, therefore, remains in full force, and no further judicial recourse or equitable accommodation has been granted to the appellant.