Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 42, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Deepa Magleena vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others on 17 November, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 
                A.F.R.
 
           RESERVED
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT A No. -10843 of 2025
 

 
Deepa Magleena
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Jigar Khare, Shagun K. Saran, Yash Singhal
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
Srishti Gupta, C.S.C., Shruti Taneja
 

 

 
Court No.52
 

 
                HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Yash Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Srishti Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2025, (Letter No.20827-35/2024-25) passed by respondent no.2.
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the impugned suspension order dated 01.03.2025 passed by respondent no.3.
(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to ensure payment of withheld salary from 25.06.2024 till date and further the regular salary payable from month to month to the petitioner.
(d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay interest upon the arrears of salary till the date of actual payment.
(e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefit other services as Assistant Teacher, Hindi (Primary) at St. Joseph Girls High School, Moradabad.
(f) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(g) To award the cost of this petition to the petitioner.

3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Hindi, (Primary) on 01.07.1991, on a contractual basis, in an Institution, namely, St. Joseph's Girls Junior High School, Civil Lines, Moradabad, (in short the institution), which is a minority Institution established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The contract of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and was operative without any time gap. The Institution in question came into grant-in-aid list in the year 2015, accordingly, appointments were made in the Institution and the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 26.06.2015. The petitioner took charge as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on 01.07.2015 before the Manager of the Institution, an experience certificate has been issued to the petitioner by the Government aided Institution, mentioning that the petitioner has been continuously working in the primary wing and was thereafter appointed in the Junior department as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on 01.07.2015, thus, it clearly transpires from the experience certificate that the petitioner had been regularly working from 1991 till 2015, and thereafter she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the aided Institution.

4. On a complaint made by one Ashutosh Chauhan (which has been categorically denied by him through an affidavit) with respect to forged TET certificate of the petitioner being placed for obtaining appointment as Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to which, an inquiry was initiated regarding appointments made by the Manager of the said Institution in collusion with one Anuj Kumar, Principal of Janta Junior High School, Jargaon, Moradabad. Thereafter, respondent no.2, vide letter dated 25.06.2024 sought details from the petitioner with respect to her appointment and proceeded to stop the payment of salary and substance allowance was also not paid to her, therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.19101 of 2024 (Deepa Magleena vs. District Basic Education Officer and Ors.) for disbursement of salary.

5. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024, set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 and remitted the matter to the respondent authorities with the following directions:-

Heard Shri Dharmendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1, 2-State.
The petitioner claims that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01.07.1991. The petitioner had submitted true and authentic academic credentials at the time of her appointment. The testimonials/certificates of the petitioner have not been found to be forged by any competent authority till date.
By the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 the salary of the petitioner has been withheld on the footing that the genuineness of the educational certificates and other testimonies was questionable. However, admittedly no enquiry was conducted into authenticity of the said educational testimonials.
This fact has been fairly admitted by the State on the basis of the instructions. The salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld without holding a proper enquiry.
In this wake, the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities/competent authority with the following directions:
I. The petitioner shall be given a show cause notice along with relevant documents proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner.
II. The report of the authority/board/university issuing the academic certificates shall also be appended to the show cause notice.
III. The concerned board/university shall cooperate in the proceedings and send a report after due authentication of the educational certificates of the petitioner.
IV. The controversy shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

6. Despite the clear directions of this Court, respondent no.2, on 10.02.2025, obtained a verification report from the Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, alleging that the petitioners TET certificate (Roll No.05055502, Sr. No.4074328) was forged, however petitioner had never submitted any such certificate since her appointment pre-dates the TET requirement. The document was not required to be submitted as the Institution, being a minority Institution, is exempted from such requirements under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondent no.2, thereafter, issued an order dated 25.02.2025, declaring the petitioners employment as void ab initio and placed the petitioner under suspension relying upon the TET verification report dated 10.02.2025, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which was in gross violation of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in the Writ Petition No.19101 of 2024 (Deepa Magleena vs. District Basic Education Officer and Ors.).

7. On 01.03.2025, respondent no.3/Manager of the Institution, suspended the petitioner from her services, primarily due to pressure from respondent no.1.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.03.2025, the petitioner affirmed her appointment in the year 1991, her exemption from TET certificate under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and full compliance with all directions. The Manager of the Institution, vide letter dated 29.02.2025 addressed to the District Basic Education Officer, informed about the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1991, detailed about the mala fide conduct of the respondents. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to a clerical error, date of the above letter was wrongly mentioned as 29.02.2025.

9. A contempt petition No.2199 of 2025 (Deepa Magleena Vs. Vimlesh Kumar, District Basic Education Officer And 2 Others) was filed for non compliance with the Courts order dated 20.12.2024, in which notices were issued to respondent no.2, after which the respondent no.2 got news published in newspapers in order to intimidate the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire action of the respondents is not only illegal but also mala fide. It is pointed out that while the names of other persons like Kavita Arya and Simple Vishnoi, whose names finds place in the complaint, no action was taken against them, only the petitioner has been selectively targeted.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents acted in an arbitrary manner whereby the salary and payment of the petitioner was stopped during pendency of the inquiry, subsequently, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 25.02.2025 without any valid evidence and the salary of the petitioner from June 2024 till February 2025 has also not been paid.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have acted in a mala fide manner by stopping the salary of the petitioner, suspending her from service ignoring her track record and remarkable service in an illegal manner, which is bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the order impugned has been passed in violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees minority Institutions (aided or unaided), autonomy in teacher appointments. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, wherein it was held that the government aid does not dilute the right as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. He has further relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Pramati Educational Trust Vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1, para-47, which holds that under Right to Education Act, the TET requirement is inapplicable to the minority institutions as per Section 23 of the Act.

13. The aforesaid legal position has been reaffirmed by the Madras High Court in Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. T. Selvarani, decided on 22.01.2024 which went to the extent of striking down the TET mandate for minority Institutions. Thus, the petitioners appointment in the year 1991 and her merit-based retention in 2002 are sacrosanct, and the obsessive fixation on TET, despite clear legal exemptions amounts to a constitutional travesty.

14. The impugned order has been passed without considering the fact that St. Joseph Girls Junior High School is a minority aided institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which enjoys constitutional autonomy to appoint and manage its teachers without interference from the State. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Vs. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717, Para-35, held that this autonomy extends to teacher appointments, and government aid does not dilute this right. The BSAs interference, by imposing the TET qualification and declaring the petitioners employment void on 25.02.2025, infringes upon this sacrosanct right, as the BSA lacks jurisdiction over appointments in minority Institutions.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice dated 27.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner as well as to the Institution and a reply was submitted on 31.01.2025 by the school. A very short time was given to the petitioner to submit her reply to the show cause notice i.e. from 28.01.2025 to 31.01.2025. A detailed letter dated 18.03.2025 was submitted by the petitioner to the School authorities, which was also sent to the BSA, Moradabad and the Finance & Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Moradabad. Despite this respondent no.2, without considering the legal position has passed the order dated 25.02.2025 declaring the petitioners appointment as void ab initio and ordered suspension of the petitioners services without conducting any disciplinary enquiry and as such they should have directed the School authorities to conduct a proper enquiry and take necessary steps. There is no basis to the show cause notice and as such no departmental enquiry has been conducted by the respondent authority before passing the impugned order that too has been passed without application of mind. No charge sheet has been served to the petitioner and the impugned orders are vitiated by law. The School authorities have submitted a reply to the show cause notice supporting the petitioners claim, however the respondent no.2 is harassing the petitioner in an arbitrary manner.

16. The petitioner has never submitted the alleged TET certificate as claimed by the respondent authorities, and the burden lies upon the respondents to establish which certificate they are claiming to be forged upon verification. The petitioner was neither provided with a copy of the alleged certificate that was verified nor with the verification report along with the show cause notice so that she could defend all the allegations.

17. Certain facts have been brought on record by learned counsel for the petitioner by filing of a supplementary affidavit.

18. A show cause notice dated 27.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner as well as to the Institution/respondent no.3 and a reply to the said notice was submitted on 31.01.2025 by the Institution. In the reply submitted by the Manager of the Institution, it has been specifically mentioned that there was no requirement of passing the U.P.T.E.T. at the time of appointment of the petitioner who was appointed on 01.07.1991. All documents placed by the petitioner were scrutinized by the District Basic Education Officer and the Selection Committee, after which the appointment of the petitioner was approved. The appointment of the petitioner has been made in accordance with law, as she was fully eligible and qualified for the same.

19. A detailed letter dated 18.03.2025 was written by the petitioner to the School authorities and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer and Finance & Accounts Officer, Moradabad, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was selected in a minority Institution which is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. She has further submitted that she was appointed in the year 2015, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable at the relevant point of time, which was prior to the enforcement of the Right to Education Act, wherein eligibility of TET was prescribed, therefore, declaring her appointment illegal, particularly in a minority Institution, is arbitrary.

20. Despite the aforesaid facts, respondent no.2 illegally declared the appointment of the petitioner as void ab initio by order dated 25.02.2025 and petitioner was placed under suspension without conducting any disciplinary enquiry whereas they should have instead directed the School authorities to conduct a proper enquiry as they were the ones, who had appointed the petitioner in accordance with law.

21. There was no basis for issuing the show cause notice as issued to the petitioner as no inquiry has been conducted by the respondent authorities before passing the order impugned. No charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated in law. The school authorities have supported the petitioners claim that her appointment was made in accordance with law, ignoring which the order impugned has been passed in an arbitrary manner. The petitioner has specifically denied the submission of any alleged TET certificate as claimed by the respondents authorities, therefore, it is upon them to prove that the certificate they are claiming to be forged and that it has been declared so after verification. The petitioner has neither been provided with a copy of the certificate which was verified nor with the verification report along with the show cause notice.

22. On the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

23. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed in the year 2015 which mentions the required qualifications of U.P.T.E.T and C.T.E.T. as issued by the Manager of the Institution. The same has been annexed as Pages-23-24 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Joint Director of Education, 12th Division, Moradabad. A letter dated 28.05.2015 of the petitioner has been annexed as addressed to the Manager of the Institution which was her application for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2015 published in Dainik Samachar and Hindustan. In the said application, she has mentioned about her educational qualifications as High School, Intermediate, B.A., B.Ed, I.G.T. and T.E.T. All the relevant certificates have also been annexed along with the application.

24. The minutes of the Selection Committee dated 11.06.2015, showing that the petitioner appeared for an interview, have also been annexed along with the affidavit. The records as maintained by the Committee on the date of interview have also been annexed where, in one of the columns shows 91 marks for T.E.T. for the petitioner. The Institution had also sent a letter to the District Basic Education Officer for approval of her appointment along with her educational certificates as well as the documents related to her selection wherein the application of the petitioner has also been annexed.

25. The District Basic Education Officer, by letter dated 19.06.2015, approved the appointment of the petitioner wherein the educational qualifications is shown as B.A., B.Ed., U.P.T.E.T. passed and her date of birth has been shown as 19.09.1971, accordingly, an appointment letter has been issued on 26.06.2015 and the petitioner joined her duties on 01.07.2015.

26. The Prapatra-(Kha) filled for the petitioner by the Institution also shows her date of birth to be 19.09.1971. Details of the educational qualifications are as follows:- (High School 1987 Second Division), (Intermediate 1991 Second Division), [Graduation 1994 Second Division (Hindi)], [B.ed 1996 Second Division (Hindi)] and (T.E.T. 2001).

27. Despite the letter of District Basic Education Officer, the Management did not provide the details of the appointment of the petitioner for which a notice dated 25.06.2022 was issued. Subsequently on 28.08.2024 the Mandaliya Sahayak Shiksha Nideshak, (Basic), Moradabad, issued another notice to the Management to provide details of appointment of the petitioner. Letter has been written by the then Manager on 30.08.2024 requesting for attestation of his signatures in order provide details of selection of the petitioner. On 07.09.2024 letter has been issued by Mandaliya Sahayak Shiksha Nideshak (Basic), Moradabad to the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, directing him to complete the inquiry.

28. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the petitioner approached this Court by means of filing Writ A No.19101 of 2024, the Court noticing that the salary of the petitioner could not be withheld without holding proper inquiry. The Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 20.12.2024 and remitting the matter to the respondents authorities with the following directions:-

I. The petitioner shall be given a show cause notice along with relevant documents proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner.
II. The report of the authority/board/university issuing the academic certificates shall also be appended to the show cause notice.
III. The concerned board/university shall cooperate in the proceedings and send a report after due authentication of the educational certificates of the petitioner.
IV. The controversy shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

29. Accordingly, a show cause notice along with relevant documents was issued to the petitioner, a report of the authority/Board/University issuing academic certificates was also appended to the show cause notice and after considering the reply as well as the report of the Board which found the TET certificate of the petitioner as forged, recommendation has been made for declaring the appointment of the petitioner as void ab initio. As the Manager was not cooperating, therefore, the respondents were left with no option but to appoint the Authorized Controller for taking necessary action against the petitioner.

30. Emphasizing upon the reply dated 18.03.2025 as submitted by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no specific denial by the petitioner that she has not submitted any T.E.T. certificate. The only fact which has been mentioned that there was no requirement of T.E.T. at the time of her appointment under the relevant Act. The aforesaid by itself goes to show that the petitioner has obtained appointment by placing a forged T.E.T. certificate which was required as per the advertisement issued by the Manager of the Institution. Thus, there is no illegality in declaration of the appointment of the petitioner as null and void.

31. In the case of Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others, passed in Writ A No.20140 of 2023, decided on 25.08.2025, the Court observed that in case of any appointment obtained through forged documents, such an appointment is illegal and void ab initio, therefore, no detailed inquiry under Article 311 of Constitution of India or under the UP Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, is required.

32. Learned counsel for the respondents, further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned. He further submits that no ground has been taken that the petitioner should have been absorbed after the coming of the Institution into grand-in-aid list and she had participated in the fresh selection process in view of the advertisement of the year 2015 and was accordingly appointed, therefore, any objections as raised at this stage has no legs to stand.

33. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Institution, namely, St. Joseph Girls Junior High School, Moradabad is Junior High School recognized under provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and Institution was put into grant-in-aid from the State Government and the salary of the teachers and other employees of the Institution are being paid under the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 as well as the U.P. recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 is applicable.

34. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Hindi subject (Primary) in the Institution, which is a minority Institution established under Article 30 (1) of Constitution of India and after recommendation of the selection committee, after approval of District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, dated 19.06.2015, an appointment letter dated 26.06.2015 was issued by the Manager of the Institution, accordingly the petitioner took charge on 01.07.2015 in the aforesaid Institution. At the time of selection, the petitioner submitted her educational certificates i.e. High School, Intermediate, Graduation and U.P.T.E.T. Certificate-2011 (Upper Primary Level) in which she allegedly secured 91 marks.

35. A complaint was made before the Additional Director of Education (Basic), 12th Region, Moradabad and after an enquiry into the allegations made in the said complaint, the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad issued an order dated 25.06.2024, withholding the current salary of the petitioner and seeking an explanation from the Manager of the Institution, because as per the verification from the board, the petitioner had obtained only 63 marks in the U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2011 meaning thereby, she has failed in U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2011.

36. The District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad made a recommendation dated 22.08.2024 for the appointment of an authorized controller in the Institution to the Divisional Assistant Education, Director (Basic), Moradabad. A show-cause notice dated 28.08.2024 has been issued to the Manager of the Institution by the Divisional Assistant Education Director (Basic), Moradabad to submit an explanation as per the show-cause notice, who has sent a letter dated 07.09.2024 to the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad to attest the signature of the Manager, because the subsequent Manager took the charge of the aforesaid Institution, as per reply of the manager dated 30.08.2024. In the meantime, the petitioner approached before this Court by filing Writ-A No. 19101 of 2024 (Smt. Deepa Magleena Versus State of U.P. and others) challenging the order dated 25.06.2024 by which the salary of the petitioner has been withheld and the High Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 20.12.2024 with a direction to decide the controversy within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

37. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent no. 2/District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad issued a letter dated 27.01.2025 to the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj to verify the educational certificates of petitioner and in pursuance of the same an enquiry was done and Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj verified the said documents and sent a verification report dated 10.02.2025 to District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad wherein it was found that the petitioner had secured only 63 marks out of 150 marks in U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2011 bearing Roll No. 05055502, Sl. No.4074328, meaning thereby that she has not passed the said examination, but the aforesaid certificate was annexed by the petitioner at the time of the appointment, showed that she has passed the examination securing 91 marks.

38. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as well as the Manager of the Institution on 27.01.2025 to submit their reply. Thereafter, the petitioner as well as Manager have submitted their reply on 31.01.2025 and 18.03.2025 respectively. As the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as the Manager of the Institution were found unsatisfactory, therefore, respondent no.2/Basic Education Officer, Moradabad again issued a letter dated 25.02.2025 to the Manager of said institution to take concrete action against the petitioner because the certificate of the U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2011 was to be forged as per the verification report dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Board of High School and Secondary Education, U.P., Prayagraj.

39. When no action was taken by the said institution against the petitioner, respondent no.2 issued letters dated 07.02.2025 and 03.06.2025 to the Divisional, Assistant Education Director (Basic), 12th Division, Moradabad, requesting therein to appoint an authorized controller in the institution as per provision of Section 6 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (in short Act 1978).

40. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 12.06.2025 was issued to the Manager of the institution under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1978, but the Manager of the institution did not submit a reply due to which Authorized Controller has been appointed on 19.06.2025 as per the relevant provisions i.e. Section 6 of the Act, 1978, which is applicable to the minority institution as well as non-minority institutions, because the present institution is recognized under provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 as well as U.P. recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rule, 1978 and the aforesaid institution was put into grant-in-aid list from the State Government and the salary of the teachers and other employees of the institution are being paid under the provisions of the Act, 1978.

41. Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.19101 of 2024 (Deepa Magleena Versus State of U.P. and others), respondent no.3 namely the manager of the said institution has not passed the final orders regarding the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner because as per the verification report dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Board, the aforesaid U.P.T.E.T. Certificate-2011 of the petitioner has been found to be forged document, and the petitioner has got appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of the said forged and fabricated U.P.T.E.T. certificate, thus the appointment of petitioner is void ab-initio.

42. Despite notices being issued to the Manager, no final orders were passed, therefore, the respondents were left with no option but to appoint an Authorized Controller for compliance with the Courts order.

43. Considering the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, read with provisions of Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rule, 1978. Appropriate orders have been passed in compliance with the Courts order dated 19.08.2025 in Writ A No.10843 of 2025.

44. There is no illegality in the order impugned or in the conduct of the respondents while issuing notice to the Manager or appointing the Authorized Controller in view of the directions of this Court as well as the relevant provisions. Thus, no interference is required and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

45. The respondent no.3, Manager, St. Joseph Girls Junior High School Civil Lines, Moradabad, does not propose to file a counter affidavit and has instead filed objections to the personal affidavit as filed on behalf of other respondents, thus supporting the case of the petitioner. He has also not disputed about the documents filed by the learned counsel for the State in the personal affidavit of the Joint Director of Education, which has been treated as counter affidavit.

46. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Institution in question is a semi-aided minority Institution, therefore, it is entitled to the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Honble Supreme Court, in the landmark judgement of T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, held that while the State may impose conditions while granting aid, such conditions must be reasonable and cannot transgress the autonomy of minority institutions in matters of administration.

47. The Apex Court in the case of Diocese of Varanasi Education Vs. State of U.P. reaffirmed that a regulatory measures imposed by the State must be confined to ensuring educational excellence and cannot permitted to erode the fundamental right of minorities to administer their institutions. Although, the Institution is subject to applicable financial and service-related regulations, the same cannot be applied in a manner that dilutes its constitutionally guaranteed autonomy.

48. He further submits that the petitioner was selected on 19.06.2015 for the post of Assistant Teacher and the appointment letter was issued on 26.06.2015 and she assumed charge on 01.07.2015 the entire process was carried out in accordance with the procedural norms. The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short, Rules of 1981) define the Appointing Authority as the District Basic Education Officer, who alone is vested with the power to verify educational qualifications, conduct recruitment, and issue appointment orders. Rule 2 (b) defines the Appointing Authority in relation to teachers referred to in Rule 3 as the District Basic Education Officer. Thus, she is having the sole responsibility of verifying the educational credentials submitted for appointment. Hence, the Schools role is limited to forwarding the documentation as required under the scheme. The covering letter as enclosed Annexure-1 of the personal affidavit filed by the Joint Director lacks authenticity as the handwritten additions at Sr Nos.8 and 9 are not countersigned by the then Manager. As per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and settled judicial precedents, any alteration in official records must be duly authenticated by the authorized signatory; failure to do so renders such documents unreliable and legally deficient.

49. The very foundation of the present proceedings rests on a complaint lodged by one Sri Ashutosh Chauhan, who later denied the same through his statement dated 17.11.2023. Therefore, the alleged complaint, being unauthorized and fabricated, strikes at the root of credibility and legality of the proceedings initiated thereon.

50. It has been further submitted by respondent no.3 that in Writ A No.19101 of 2024 (Deepa Magleena vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), decided on 20.12.2024, wherein the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, has been quashed. Hence, once the said order is quashed, any reliance placed upon it by the Joint Director in personal affidavit is misconceived and untenable in the eyes of law. The District Basic Education Officer, vide order dated 25.06.2024, acted solely on the basis of an unverified, unauthenticated complaint, without affording an opportunity of hearing to either the Institution or the petitioner. Such action is a breach of principles of natural justice as enshrined in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597. Hence, the order impugned dated 25.06.2024 was inherently unsustainable in the eyes of law and has rightly not withstood judicial scrutiny.

51. While passing the order impugned, reliance has been placed upon the order dated 25.06.2024 which is entirely misplaced and devoid of legal effect in as much as the alleged complaint of the complainant has been expressly denied by him and the consequential order dated 25.06.2024, relying upon such complaint already stands quashed by this Court.

52. The appointment of an Authorized Controller under Section 6 of U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 is misconceived as the same is in violation of the protection granted under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise Section 6 of the Act of 1978 permits appointment of an Authorized Controller only in cases of proven default by Management in discharging obligations under Sections 3, 4 and 5. No such default exists in the present case. The institution has complied with all statutory provisions, including suspension of the petitioner in accordance with lawful directions, and has repeatedly sought verified documents from the BSA, who alone is statutorily empowered under Rule 2(1)(aa) of the Rules of 1981 to authenticate the qualifications.

53. Therefore, the appointment of an Authorized Controller is in violation of the judgement passed in case T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), in which it has been held that the minority Institutions enjoy constitutional protection from unwarranted interference.

54. Therefore, the recommendation for appointment of an Authorized Controller is premature, legally untenable, and inconsistent with the Constitutional protection as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

55. As per Rule 2(1)(aa) of Rules of 1981, the BSA is the sole authority empowered to verify the educational documents, if any.

56. Pursuant to the recommendation, a show cause notice dated 28.08.2024 was issued, to which the Manager submitted a reply on 31.08.2024, clarifying that the petitioners salary had been withheld since July 2024 in compliance with BSAs letter dated 05.08.2024, pending verification of credentials.

57. As a minority Institution, the Management enjoys autonomy in administrative and employment matters, and any action bypassing statutory procedure violates both law and Constitutional safeguards. Accordingly, the recommendation dated 22.08.2024 and show cause notice dated 28.08.2024 are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The respondent no.3 has acted bona fide, in compliance with the statutory provisions and Courts directions. Any alleged default cannot be attributed to the respondent no.3, as verification of qualifications lies solely with the BSA.

58. While passing the order, reliance has been placed on the Manager's reply dated 30.08.2024 and the letter dated 07.09.2024 of the Divisional Assistant Education Director (Basic), Moradabad, is wholly misconceived.

59. The present Manager assumed charge on 16.06.2024 and immediately sought attestation of her specimen signature, a statutory requirement under Rule 20 of Rules of 1978. However, despite repeated requests, the authorities withheld the attestation, resulting in stoppage of salaries of the entire aided staff for the month of July-September 2024, which has caused grave hardship and obstruction in the administration of the Institution.

60. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that statutory powers cannot be exercised for collateral purposes or as a means of coercion. The aforesaid has been held in the cases of State of Punjab and Another v. Gurdial Singh and others, (1980) 2 SCC 471 and State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1.

61. In such circumstances, the stoppage of salary amounts to vulnerable exercise of power, deployed as a pressure tactic to compel the Institution to act against the petitioner without following the due process of law.

62. In the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, the Apex Court has categorically affirmed the constitutional protection under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India, prohibiting unreasonable interference in the administration of minority institutions. The conduct of the authorities, thus, strikes at the very root of these protections. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Institution has acted in a good faith throughout, while the hardship caused is solely attributable to the deliberate inaction and mala fide conduct of the statutory authorities.

63. The affidavit filed by the State authorities is misleading and contains narration of the order passed in Writ-A No.19101 of 2024 (Smt. Deepa Magleena vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein certain directions were issued which have been suppressed by the deponent.

64. The respondent no.3 has at all times acted in strict compliance with the statutory provisions, governing appointments. The petitioner's case was duly scrutinized and approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, vide order dated 19.06.2015, whereas the appointment letter was issued on 26.06.2015 and the petitioner assumed charge on 01.07.2015. Such approval by the statutory authority necessarily presupposed verification and authentication of the petitioner's educational documents, including the UPTET-2011 certificate.

65. The subsequent communication dated 27.01.2025, directing re-verification of the same documents nearly a decade later, is contradictory and reflects a lapse on the part of the District Basic Education Officer and not the Institution. The belated verification exercise was initiated only pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 20.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.19101 of 2024, thereby demonstrating that the authority failed to discharge its duties at the time of appointment. If at all the petitioner's certificate was forged or invalid, the same ought to have been detected in 2015 itself. The failure to do so is attributable solely to the District Basic Education Officer and the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., and cannot be foisted upon the Institution. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari (2007) 8 SCC 600 has categorically held that the negligence of a statutory authority cannot prejudice innocent third parties acting bona fide. The belated re-verification of 2025 undermines the validity of the earlier statutory approval dated 19.06.2015 and raises doubts about the bona fides of the authorities, but in no manner can implicate the Institution for their fault.

66. The show-cause notice dated 27.01.2025, issued to the petitioner and the Manager of the Institution in compliance with the order passed by this Court, suffers from fundamental infirmities.

67. This Hon'ble Court had also directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing along with all relevant documents proposed to be relied upon. Despite this, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 3 has been supplied with the allegedly verified U.P.T.E.T. certificate or any supporting material. The non-supply of such documents vitiates proceedings, being contrary to principles of natural justice. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has relied upon the cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. Miss Binapani Dei and others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

68. The District Basic Education Officer is shifting the liability upon the Institution for verification of the documents, which should have been verified by him at the stage of appointment. The respondent No. 3, in its reply dated 18.03.2025, specifically pointed out these deficiencies and requested disclosure of verification documents, which remains unaddressed. Thus, the impugned notice is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, and unsustainable in law for non-compliance with this Hon'ble Court's directions and breach of principles of natural justice.

69. The District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, by its letter dated 25.02.2025, directed the Institution to take "concrete action" against the petitioner on the basis of a verification report dated 10.02.2025, alleging her UPTET-2011 certificate to be forged. The said direction is misconceived in law. Under the relevant Act and Rules, the duty to verify educational qualifications lies exclusively with the District Basic Education Officer at the stage of appointment. The Institution has no authority to re-verify the government-issued certificates.

70. The petitioner's appointment was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 19.06.2015 after scrutiny of her documents, whereafter she joined her service. Nearly ten years later, shifting the statutory burden upon the Institution is illegal and the verification of 2025 has been undertaken only pursuant to this Hon'ble Court's order dated 20.12.2024, clearly reflecting administrative lapse and delay attributable to the District Basic Education Officer.

71. The Institution, in good faith, has suspended the petitioner as per the direction of District Basic Education Officer and has repeatedly requested to supply the documents relied upon and requesting for clear directions regarding her salary and service status. Till date, neither the petitioner nor the Institution has been furnished with such material. This failure vitiates the proceedings and violates settled principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgements of Apex Court passed in the cases of Binapani Dei (supra) and Mohinder Singh Gill (supra). Accordingly, the letter dated 25.02.2025 is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to judicial directions.

72. The Institution, has acted bona fidely and cannot be saddled with the statutory lapses of the District Basic Education Officer, who alone is empowered to determine the validity of certificates and pass consequential orders.

73. The recommendations made by Respondent No.2, District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, for appointment of an Authorized Controller under Section 6 of Act of 1978 are wholly arbitrary, misconceived, and without jurisdiction. Such appointment can be made only in cases of default in disbursing salaries or wilful violation of statutory obligations. The Institution has committed no such default, rather, salaries were withheld by Respondent No. 2 himself owing to his belated verification exercise, thereby creating an artificial ground of "non-compliance."

74. It is settled law that appointment of an Authorized Controller is an exceptional remedy, cannot be invoked routinely or punitively. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court passed in cases of Committee of Management v. State of U.P., 2009 (11) ADJ 641 and St. John Inter College v. State of U.P., AIR 2007 All 65). In the present case, no circumstance exists warranting such action of appointment of an Authorized Controller.

75. The alleged show cause notice dated 12.06.2025, issued by the Joint Director of Education (Basic), Moradabad, was never served upon Respondent No.3 Institution, therefore, he had no knowledge or opportunity to reply. The very authenticity of such notice is doubtful, as the subsequent order dated 19.06.2025 appointing an Authorized Controller makes no reference to it.

76. Appointment of an Authorized Controller is an extraordinary measure, permissible only after strict compliance with Sections 3 to 5 of Act of 1978 and after affording the management a fair opportunity of hearing. These statutory safeguards were wholly ignored in the present case.

77. The Institution in question is a semi-aided minority institution and not a fully aided one. The State's financial assistance is confined only to a portion of the salaries, while the remaining expenditure is borne by the minority management. Therefore, the Institution thus retains its minority character within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Section 6 of Act of 1978 has no application to minority Institutions.

78. Relying upon Apex Courts judgements passed in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 and Sindhi Education Society v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 8 SCC 49, it is submitted that minority Institutions whether aided or unaided, enjoy the fundamental right to establish and administer their institutions subject only to reasonable regulations that do not erode their autonomy. While the State may impose conditions for proper utilization of aid, it cannot compel minority institutions to surrender their rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the attempt of respondents to invoke Section 6 of the 1978 Act against the Institution is wholly misconceived, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

79. The Direction passed by this Honble Court in Writ Petition No.19101 of 2024 were fully complied with by the Institution. However, the District Basic Education Officer, has failed to provide proper legal directions regarding the petitioners status and salary, and supply of the verified documents relied upon. The verification report dated 10.02.2025 was never furnished either to the Institution or to the petitioner, contrary to the Court's directions, thereby disabling the Institution from proceeding further without violating principles of natural justice.

80. As settled in the cases of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, (2009) 5 SCC 65 and District Basic Education Officer v. Ku. Anita Kumari (2012 (3) AWC 2610), it has been held that cancellation of an appointment on grounds of alleged forgery requires due process by the competent authority.

81. In the present case, the petitioners appointment had already been duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 19.06.2015 after scrutiny of the documents. Once such approval was granted, the Institution could not unilaterally declare the appointment void.

82. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

83. It is an undisputed fact that the institution in which the petitioner is presently serving was brought under the Grant-in-Aid list in the year 2015. As per the relevant provisions governing such inclusion, as applicable to the State, absorption of existing staff is permissible only in cases where the appointments had been made prior to the date of inclusion and in accordance with law, i.e., against duly sanctioned posts and through a recognized selection procedure.

84. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had been appointed against a sanctioned post prior to the institution being brought under Grant-in-Aid list. Rather, the petitioner herself applied afresh pursuant to the public advertisement issued in 2019, participated in the selection process without protest, and was duly issued an appointment letter thereafter.

85. In view of the doctrine of estoppel and principle of acquiescence, once the petitioner voluntarily subjected herself to the fresh recruitment process, she cannot now claim absorption with retrospective effect based on the inclusion of the institution in the Grant-in-Aid list. The Honble Supreme Court in cases of Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486, and Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, has categorically held that a candidate who participates in a selection process cannot subsequently turn around to challenge the same or seek a deviation therefrom.

86. Moreover, absorption is not an inherent right unless specifically conferred by statute. The Honble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Daya Lal and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429, held that regularization or absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the appointment was made in accordance with statutory rules against a sanctioned post.

87. Accordingly, in the absence of any statutory mandate requiring automatic absorption of the petitioner upon inclusion of the institution in the Grant-in-Aid list, and considering her conscious participation in the fresh recruitment process, the claim now raised is bereft of merit and is liable to be rejected.

88. The petitioner, without raising any objection, voluntarily submitted her candidature pursuant to the fresh advertisement. One of the essential eligibility criteria prescribed therein was possession of a TET certificate. The petitioner, with full knowledge and understanding of the requirements, applied under the said advertisement, clearly disclosing in her application that she was TET qualified.

89. This fact has not been disputed by the management. On the contrary, it has been specifically stated that the approval of the petitioners appointment by the statutory authority was granted only after verification and authentication of her educational credentials, including the UPTET 2011 certificate. In such circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner never produced the requisite certificate.

90. Furthermore, the management has not denied the documents annexed by the respondents in the counter affidavit pertaining to the selection and appointment process of the petitioner. Thus, the authenticity of the petitioner's eligibility credentials stands duly established and remains uncontroverted. It is undisputed that the eligibility criteria stipulated in the advertisement expressly mandated possession of a TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualification in addition to the other prescribed educational requirements. In view of the settled position of law that the eligibility of a candidate must be determined as on the last date of submission of the application, the same has been held in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 and Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85), the petitioner ought to have possessed a valid TET certificate to be considered eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

91. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner did not submit the TET certificate as indicated in her application at the time of responding to the advertisement. This fact is duly substantiated by the records available on file, which remain uncontroverted by the learned counsel representing the respondent-management.

92. As regards the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the institution in question, being a minority institution, was exempt from the requirement of possessing a TET qualification on the strength of protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, this Court finds such contention to be fundamentally misconceived. Article 30(1) undoubtedly guarantees to minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; however, this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations framed to ensure academic excellence and maintain standards of education.

93. The Constitution Bench in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, categorically held that "the right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer". This principle was reiterated in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537, wherein it was clarified that regulatory measures in the larger interest of discipline, efficiency, and educational standards are permissible even in respect of minority institutions, so long as they do not dilute the core right of administration.

94. Furthermore, in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust (Registered) and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2014) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court upheld the applicability of general regulatory norms upon minority institutions, save only in matters where such regulations directly infringe upon their autonomy.

95. In light of the above legal position, the exemption sought from the mandatory requirement of T.E.T., which is a qualification prescribed in furtherance of maintaining minimum teaching standards, cannot be sustained. The plea founded upon Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is therefore untenable.

96. Though mala fides have been alleged by the petitioner, asserting that the impugned action was taken at the behest of the respondents and that she was initially placed under suspension and thereafter her appointment was cancelled under external pressure, no cogent or specific material has been brought on record to substantiate such claims. A vague and unsubstantiated plea of mala fide cannot be entertained by this Court at this stage, particularly when, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was conducted with respect to the authenticity of the TET certificate, and the same was found to be forged. Once the foundational eligibility document itself has been established to be fabricated, the plea of mala fide pales into insignificance and cannot be relied upon to nullify the consequential administrative action.

97. Placing reliance upon certain judicial pronouncements, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that minority institutions are exempted from the requirement of possessing TET qualification for appointment as teachers, and further, that such institutions are protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. This Court, however, finds no merit in the aforesaid submission. The advertisement in question explicitly stipulated possession of a valid TET certificate as one of the essential eligibility conditions. Having consciously applied pursuant to the said advertisement without challenging its terms at the relevant stage, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to assail the mandatory requirement of TET qualification. The plea is further rendered untenable in view of the admitted position that the TET certificate furnished by the petitioner at the time of appointment has subsequently been found to be forged. It is also relevant to note that the management itself, while forwarding the petitioners documents for approval, did not dispute the existence of the alleged TET certificate and, in fact, enclosed the same along with other educational credentials.

98. The issue involved in the present case has been sought to be misdirected by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the management by contending that there is no requirement of TET qualification for appointment of teachers in minority institutions. However, such contention is wholly misconceived and irrelevant to the facts of the present case. It is a settled position of law that a candidate must possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement at the time of submission of the application.

99. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner produced a forged TET certificate while seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the said advertisement. Therefore, the appointment obtained by the petitioner is ex facie illegal, void ab initio, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

100. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Management, supporting the case of the petitioners appointment, is that the very basis of the proceedings is vitiated, as the complaint itself was non-existent the alleged complainant having categorically denied having made any such complaint. It is thus urged that the entire enquiry and consequential action founded upon such a non-existent complaint are wholly illegal and unsustainable in law.

101. However, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ-A No. 19101 of 2024, and not on the basis of any earlier report or order, including the order dated 25.06.2024. Accordingly, the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Management is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained.

​102. It is settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates every solemn act. An appointment obtained by suppression of material facts, misrepresentation or non-disclosure does not create any enforceable right in favour of the appointee. The Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran, reported in 1995 supp. (4) SCC 100 and A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177, has categorically held that a person who enters service by playing fraud cannot be allowed to continue even for a day, and that the consequential termination or removal is not punitive but merely a declaration that no valid appointment ever came into existence.

103. In the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105, the Honble Supreme Court categorically held that an appointment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation cannot be sanctified by long continuance in service, equity has no application in cases illegality. Similarly, in the case of M. Bhaskaran (supra), wherein it was held that appointments obtaining by producing forged or manipulated documents are nullities in the eyes of law and any monitory benefits derived therefrom are recoverable. Similarly in the case of Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383, the Court reiterated that fraud unravels everything and no Court can lend its aid to a person who bases his claim on fraudulent conduct.

104. It is settled proposition of law that although minority institutions are conferred with the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, such right is not absolute or unregulated. The said right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of maintaining efficiency, discipline, and proper utilization of public funds where the institution is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State.

105. In this regard, the appointment of an Authorised Controller in a minority institution cannot be construed as an infringement of Article 30(1) so long as the said appointment is made in exceptional circumstances of proved mismanagement, maladministration, financial irregularities or where the committee of management has become defunct or is unable to function in accordance with law. Such regulatory intervention is permissible only for restoring normal administration and ensuring that the institution continues to discharge its educational obligations effectively, and not for the purpose of taking over or permanently superseding the minority management.

106. This Court finds support for the aforesaid proposition from the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in All Saints High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1980) 2 SCC 478; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481; and St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, (2003) 3 SCC 321, wherein it has been consistently held that reasonable regulations intended to prevent maladministration do not violate the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1). Thus, in cases where the competent authority records a finding of grave irregularities or administrative breakdown, the temporary appointment of an Authorised Controller to ensure proper management of the institution cannot be said to be unconstitutional or illegal.

107. In the case of A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Sarat Chandra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669, it was observed that when an appointment is obtained by concealment of fact or misrepresentation, the same is void ab initio and liable to be cancelled forthwith.

108. Even if it is assumed that the concerned respondents failed to conduct proper scrutiny of the petitioners documents, the act of forgery committed by the petitioner cannot, in any manner, be justified or condoned. The lapse, if any, on the part of the respondents does not absolve the petitioner of the serious misconduct of furnishing forged documents to secure appointment.

109. The law in case of appointment obtained fraudulently is well settled. Fraudulently obtained order of appointment or approval can be recalled by the authority concerned. In such cases merely because the employee continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of fraudulently obtained orders, cannot create any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer/authority. When an appointment or approval has been obtained by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer to cancel such appointment or approval since "Fraud and justice never dwell together.

110. Supporting the case of the petitioner, the management has contended that it was the duty of the concerned respondent authorities to scrutinize the educational certificates and other documents of the petitioner prior to offering appointment, which, according to them, was duly undertaken. It is further submitted that if there was any lapse in such scrutiny, the liability for the same cannot be fastened upon the management.

111. In the case of R. Vishwanath Pillai (supra) as well as M. Bhaskaran (supra) has consistently held that fraud vitiates everything in such circumstances, the individual never acquires the status of a Government Servant, and therefore, cannot invoke the protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India.

112. If an appointment is found to be based on forgery, the authority has the right to recall the appointment. The individual appointed under such circumstances cannot claim any equity or rights based on their continued service, as the appointment is fundamentally flawed. The aforesaid has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 SCC Online All 6109.

113. To the aforesaid submission, this Court finds no substance, as the act of the petitioner in securing appointment on the basis of forged documents cannot be justified or condoned on any pretext. The commission of fraud vitiates every solemn act, and an appointment obtained by deceit or by placing forged documents is void ab initio and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

114. The above issue has already been settled by this Court in the cases of Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of UP and 4 Others, Writ A No.11846 of 2025, Shiv Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others, in Writ A No.12839 of 2023, Pankaj Mathur vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, in Writ A No.12336 of 2025. This Court is of the considered view that although, as per the settled position of law, no opportunity of hearing or detailed enquiry is warranted in cases where an appointment has been secured by practising fraud, yet, in the present case, proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the directions issued by this Court were duly complied with. The same has been held in the case of Writ A No.20140 of 2023 (Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) wherein this Court observed that in case the employment has been obtained based on fraudulent documents on concealing material facts, the beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek any enquiry in terms of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order has been passed directing the management to take appropriate action in the matter. Since the management failed to act in accordance with the said directions, the Authorized Controller has rightly been appointed to ensure that the final action is taken against the petitioner in accordance with law.

115. This Court finds no merits, accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

116. The Court record its sincere appreciation for the diligent efforts and valuable assistance extended by Ms. Shreya Shukla, Research Associate. The depth, precision and clarity displayed in her legal research and analysis reflect exemplary professionalism and meticulous attention to detail. The Court acknowledges her substantial contribution in effectively assisting the adjudication of the case.

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) November 17, 2025 Rahul Goswami